Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Portsmouth Corporation Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

Tamworth Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Epsom Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Hackney Borough Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Trowbridge, Melksham, and District Water Board Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Chepping Wycombe Corporation) Bill (by Order),

Read the Third time, and passed.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, STALYBRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DISTRICT) WATERWORKS BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. THORNE: Object!

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Robert Young): I understand that the objection to this Bill has been withdrawn.

Mr. THORNE: The reason I object is because an hon. Friend of mine has a
Motion down to move the rejection of the Bill.

Sir R. YOUNG: That objection, has, I understand, been satisfied.

Mr. THORNE: I will withdraw my objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INDIAN ARMY (INDIANISATION).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any further statement as to the progress made in the Indianisation of the Indian Army?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) on the 8th June.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many officers will be required when this takes effect?

Mr. BENN: I am not quite clear as to whether the hon. Member refers to what is going on under the existing policy or under the new policy after the report of the inquiry which is now proceeding has been received. I am replying on the basis of existing policy.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: Will an opportunity be given to the House before long to discuss this scheme?

Mr. BENN: That is a matter of business, which depends upon communications between the parties.

RENTS, BARDOLI DISTRICT.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the rents which are due in the Bardoli district have now been paid and the Irwin-Gandhi agreement carried out there; if not, how much is still owing; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. BENN: Apart from unauthorised arrears on last year's revenue amounting to Rs. 258,000, out of the total current year's demands for land revenue in Bardoli Rs. 422,000 have been paid, leaving a balance, due of Rs. 118,000. In view of the fact that on the 31st March Rs. 372,694 were owing, I do not consider that the recent collections of land revenue in Bardoli give cause for dissatisfaction.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question; whether the Irwin-Gandhi agreement has been carried out?

Mr. BENN: The last answer is in the figures I have given the hon. and gallant Member.

Brigadier-General BROWN: They are not very satisfactory. Did not the right hon. Gentleman say when he took over the India Office that he intended to govern. Why does he not do so?

Mr. BENN: Inasmuch as the arrears of money due, 372,000 rupees on the 31st March, have been reduced by the present date to 118,000 rupees the position may, I think, be considered as satisfactory.

RIOTS, CAWNPORE.

Mr. REMER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will publish the evidence given before the Commission inquiring into the riots at Cawnpore?

Mr. BENN: I have nothing to add to the answers given on Wednesday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox).

Mr. REMER: May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the evidence published in the "Saturday Review "?

Mr. BENN: My attention has been called to a great mass of Press cuttings. It is superfluous to call my attention to it, because the inquiry itself proceeded in public.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a verbatim report of the evidence given before the Commission? Would it not be much better to publish the whole of the evidence?

Mr. BENN: That is precisely the point I have answered. I have not seen
the evidence yet; it has not reached this country. What I am concerned with is to give the House as soon as possible the printed report.

Mr. REMER: When he gets the evidence will the right hon. Gentleman publish the report?

Mr. REMER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India what instructions were given by the Government of India to the officers commanding the troops during the Cawnpore riots; and if he can inform the House whether those instructions emanated from him?

Mr. BENN: No instructions were given by the Government of India to the officer commanding troops in Cawnpore in connection with the riots there.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that the officers were prevented from firing unless the order was signed by a magistrate?

Mr. BENN: I have given an answer to the question put by the hon. Member. If he has any further information perhaps he will let me have it.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether any instructions were given to the officer commanding the troops in Cawnpore?

Mr. BENN: If the House will allow me and if the hon. Member desires it, I will read the answer again.
No instructions were given.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is it not a fact that the whole policy of the Government prevented any local officer taking any initiative?

Mr. BRACKEN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House an assurance that no action will be taken against Mr. J. F. Sale, district magistrate at Cawnpore, before the House has had an opportunity of discussing the report of the commissioners who inquired into the recent massacres at Cawnpore?

Mr. BENN: Mr. Sale was offered the, choice of transfer to another district or of taking leave and has elected to take leave. There is no question of other action in regard to him.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the interests of Indian civil servants are, in cases like this, safeguarded?

Mr. BRACKEN: Is it not a fact that the Governor of this particular Province admitted a weakness of administration, and are the careers of civil servants to be broken while men in high places remain immune?

Mr. BENN: I hope there is no question of any careers of Indian civil servants being broken?

Mr. BRACKEN: May I take it that the career of Mr. Sale will not be affected by the Commission's report?

Mr. BENN: The hon. Member asks what action has been taken, and I have told him.

OIL INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if in view of the injury caused to the producers of oil in Burma by the importation of cheap American and Russian oils into India and Burma, and the consequent reduction in the purchasing power of the Indian and Burmese people and the injury to British exporters to India, he will state what the Indian Government is doing to protect the interests of oil producers in Burma?

Mr. BENN: The question of safeguarding the oil industry in India against injury from the importation of cheap foreign oils was considered by the Indian Tariff Board and the Government of India in 1928 and it was decided that no action was called for. So far as I know the oil producers have not since asked the Government of India to take any action on their behalf.

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech of the Chairman of the Burma Oil Company?

Mr. ALPASS: Is it not a fact that, despite the importation of the oil referred to, the Burma Oil Company last year earned a dividend of approximately 35 per cent. on its ordinary shares?

DISTURBANCES (CASUALTIES).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received from the Government of India information to show how many
lives were lost and police killed, respectively, in disturbances of all kinds in the provinces of Madras and Bombay during the years 1955, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively; and how many lives were lost in similar circumstances during each of the same years in Calcutta?

Mr. BENN: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How much longer shall I have to wait? It is now seven weeks.

Mr. BENN: The hon. Member asked me to institute an inquiry which meant a great deal of labour for a number of our burdened Governments. Willing to meet his wishes, I wrote to the India Government asking if they could fulfil them. I have not yet had an answer.

BURMA.

Captain WALLACE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make any further statement as to the situation in Burma; and whether he is satisfied that all possible measures are being taken to ensure the safety of British residents in that country?

Mr. BENN: I am circulating a statement covering the events of last week. With regard to the second part of the question, I am satisfied as to the adequacy of the measures taken.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that proper precautions are being taken to protect the lives of Indians in Burma?

Mr. BENN: It is one of the most disquieting facts of the whole situation. We are doing everything in our power.

Following is the statement:

In Tharrawaddy and Insein districts dacoities have been less numerous. In Henzada, the situation has been difficult owing to the low numerical strength of military police, but troops will arrive there shortly. In prome district police and troops have had several successes against rebels and the situation is reported to have improved. In Thayetmyo, the original rebel area is reported to be settling down, but dacoities have been numerous in the northern part of the district, and there are signs of disaffection in the neighbouring districts of Minbu and Magwe. In Pegu district over 30 prisoners broke out of Nyaunglebin subjail on 12th June and captured 15 police
carbines. The absconders are said to have made for the forests to the west, but detailed information is at present lacking.

Attacks on Indians and Chinese still continue in several districts of Lower Burma, but the situation is gradually improving; a large number of Indian immigrants have left Rangoon during the last two weeks. The economic situation shows no marked change. Cultivation is starting slowly. Several districts report that relief works will probably be required in August or September after ploughing is finished.

CONFERENCE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he will further define his statement in the recently published correspondence that the Indian Round Table Conference would be resumed as at the termination of the conference on January last, the scope of the discussions to be subject to certain specific safeguards in the interest of India, in view of the fact that the reservations and safeguards stipulated for as indispensable by the British delegates in January last were of a fuller and wider character than stated in his letter and laid down that adequate safeguards were indispensable not only in the interests of India but also in the interests of Great Britain, having regard to the financial and other responsibilities of this country in India?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I fail to follow the hon. Member in the distinction which He seeks to draw between the attitude in regard to safeguards defined in my recently published letter to the right hon. Member for the Bewdley Division (Mr. S. Baldwin) and that which was declared by me on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the end of the Round Table Conference in January.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister himself limited the safeguards to safeguards in the interests of India, and is it not very desirable that before these delegates come over to this country it should be made quite clear to them that certain safeguards are indispensable not only in the interests of India but in the interests of Great Britain?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of everybody concerned to what might be construed into a discrepancy, but which, so far as I am concerned, is no discrepancy at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Mr. DAY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any claims have been made through the Foreign Office by British subjects for the loss of their possessions during the recent disturbances in Spain; and can he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Only three claims have been made through the Foreign Office. Particulars of these have already been given in answer to questions by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) on the 20th of May, and the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) on the 12th of June.

Mr. DAY: May I ask whether these claims include those of the ladies who lost their possessions?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, I think so.

SITUATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement as to the condition of affairs in Spain; whether martial law has now been raised; and whether the General Elections are still to be held at the end of the month?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The general situation in Spain has not materially altered since the 2nd of June, when I replied to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). There is no general application of martial law, but the Spanish Government have been obliged to apply it locally from time to time to cope with disturbances which have arisen. The elections for the Cortes have been fixed for the 28th of June.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS).

Sir K. WOOD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the considered observations of the Soviet representatives on the British memorandum in relation to the proceedings of sub-committee B have now been received; and whether he can now make a statement on the present position?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am informed that the reply of the Soviet members of the Main Committee was communicated on Saturday last to the British members, who will meet to consider it in the course of this week.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to communicate the reply to the House?

Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, no; I do not propose to do anything of the kind. I am going to reply when the work is finished.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to state what is the position so far as the work has gone?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, not as long as the work is continuing. I want results.

Sir K. WOOD: But the work is not continuing, and that is why the question is put.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman means that he wants the maximum of secret diplomacy.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the report sent to him by Sir Miles Lampson upon the conversations and negotiations carried out with Dr. Wang?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am still awaiting a full report from Sir Miles Lampson, but I cannot, at this stage, give an undertaking to publish it, when it is received. Moreover, until political conditions in China make it possible for a final agreement to be concluded, it is not desirable that the results so far reached in the negotiations should be made public.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not deciding whether to publish it or not until he has received the full report? I hope he has not made up his mind not to publish it.

Mr. HENDERSON: Much would depend upon the character of the report. I have repeatedly stated in the House during the last few years that I am not going to commit myself beforehand to communicating information about very important negotiations that are carried on by representatives of the country.

Sir K. WOOD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Canton Government has seized the customs and has ordered the commissioners to hand over to Canton daily a sum representing the surplus over the amount required for the service of the Foreign loans and whether he is taking any steps in the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: My information is that on the 10th of June the Canton authorities instructed the Customs Bank at Canton to hand over daily to them all customs revenue other than the proceeds of the old five per cent. tariff and the tonnage dues, which would continue to be dealt with by the Commissioner of Customs as formerly. The Commissioner of Customs acquiesced in this situation, subject to a formal protest. The matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government feels called upon to intervene.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this is a very serious situation and one which demands some representations on his part?

Mr. HENDERSON: I know. I would not have given the answer that I have given if I did not think so.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does this not contrast unfavourably with Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.

Mr. HANNON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether he can state the estimated cost of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations for the current financial year, and
the proportionate share of this total expenditure for which Great Britain is responsible?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. The estimated net cost of the International Labour Organistion (including the cost of conferences and meetings of the governing body) for the calendar year 1931 is, 8,661,652 Swiss francs. The proportion of this expenditure for which Great Britain is responsible is 922,387 Swiss francs (approximately 10.65 per cent.). To this must be added 32,428 Swiss francs, being the equivalent share of the contribution to be made, in respect of the International Labour Organisation, to the League of Nations Staff Pensions Fund. To meet these contributions the sum of £38,000 has been provided in the Estimates (Class V. 8) for the current financial year.

Mr. HANNON: Is the Minister satisfied that the taxpayers of this country are getting an adequate return for the amount expended?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government following upon the conclusion of the Convention on the taxation of foreign motor vehicles which was signed by 10 countries at the European road traffic conference in March last; and if any agreements have yet been made exempting private touring cars from taxation and other charges?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I have been asked to answer this question. As the Convention referred to has not yet been ratified by His Majesty's Government no action has been taken to put it into force. As regards the taxation of private motor cars belonging to foreign visitors, exemption from duty for four months is accorded under the Road Vehicles (International Circulation Permit) (No. 2) Regulations, 1930. Under the Convention it is proposed that 90 days should be accorded reciprocally by all the countries that are parties to the Convention. It will there
fore be seen that we already treat the foreign motoring visitor more generously than is provided fox in the Convention which was recently signed.

Mr. HANNON: Why is a Lord of the Treasury asked to reply instead of the Foreign Secretary, who ought to reply? What steps are being taken, following upon this Convention? It was arranged that individual countries might make arrangements, and the hon. Member has not given any indication as to what progress has been made since the Convention?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have said that the matter is still under consideration. Of course, the other remark of the hon. Member should be made to the Minister.

Mr. HANNON: For the guidance of the House, Mr. Speaker, would you kindly state why, when a question is addressed to His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on a matter vitally affecting the interests of this country, one of His Majesty's Lords of the Treasury should reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very old question. So long as the hon. Member receives an answer to his question, it does not seem to be of much importance who gives the answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the answer come from the appropriate Department? Is not the hon. Gentleman who replied Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SEVEN-YEARS' LIMIT.

Mr. JOWETT: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions, concerning the 1,465 applications made under the over-seven-years limit arrangement recognised for medical treatment or award of compensation in the form of pension or other pecuniary grant, if he will state how many were recognised for medical treatment only; how many were awarded pensions with or without medical treatment; how many were awarded pecuniary grants; the total amount weekly of the pensions awarded; and the total amount of the pecuniary grants awarded?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): In about 950 of the cases referred to, pension, or some addition to an existing pension, was granted at an estimated cost of about £1,000 a week; whilst in about 470 cases other pecuniary grants were made to the estimated total value of about £14,000. The number of cases in which medical treatment only was found necessary was 39.

LEGISLATION.

Mr. STEPHEN: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider introducing legislation based on the fit-for-service fit-for-pension Bill, formerly introduced by himself, in view of the large number of ex-service men whose health was impaired by their service but who have so far been unable to obtain a pension?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am not proposing to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I have every reason to believe that the fresh claims made even at this late date by men whose health is found to be impaired by their war service are being fairly met by the arrangement which I was able to make in 1929.

Mr. STEPHEN: If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to introduce legislation like that, can he says how I shall be able to get some measure of justice in the cases that I have brought to his notice?

Mr. ROBERTS: I can only assure my hon. Friend that all the cases he submits will have the fairest and fullest consideration that I can give to them.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that, with the legislation that is already on the Statute Book, there is no opportunity for dealing with many of these cases?

Mr. ROBERTS: No. I do not think that legislation would improve the position. We have endeavoured to amend the regulations so that the widest consideration can be given.

Sir K. WOOD: Did the right hon. Gentleman not make a very different statement before the last Election?

An HON. MEMBER: And you will before the next.

NOTIFICATIONS OF AWARD.

Mr. STEPHEN: 21.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that applicants who have been granted pensions under the special arrangements are informed that the pension is granted until further notice; and, seeing that this phrase causes anxiety as to the duration of the pension, whether he will take steps to make it plain that these pensions are granted on the same basis of permanency as other pensions?

Mr. ROBERTS: Notifications of award to pensioners of the class referred to are in the same terms as those which have for many years been in use for all classes of award, except final award, and I have no evidence that any special action is called for in the sense suggested.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter further? In some of these cases when grants have been given the person concerned has expressed his fears to me with regard to the pension. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate that in this connection the normal procedure is being followed?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that there need be no fears in this connection. If he will come and see me about any particular case, I will deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DANISH STATE RAILWAYS.

Captain CAZALET: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has considered the communications which his Department has received with regard to an offer by the Danish State Railways to purchase their supplies of coal in this country; and whether he has taken any steps to assist them in obtaining their orders?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No communication of the nature referred to has been received in my Department.

Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that the Danish State Railways desired to purchase some 50,000 tons of coal in
this country, but were unable to get a tender owing to the quota system, and that the whole order went to Germany?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no information on that matter.

COLLIERY COMPANIES.

Miss LEE: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of colliery companies operating in Great Britain; the number of directors appointed by such companies; and the total salaries paid to colliery directors?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): According to the latest information available, there are in Great Britain 1,223 colliery undertakings. My hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to give the information asked for in the last part of the question.

Miss LEE: Would it not be possible, since we get information of wages paid to miners, that those who are interested in mining matters should be able to know exactly what is paid out in this direction; can nothing be done in the Department to collect this information?

Mr. SMITH: I will convey that representation to my right hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the salaries paid to the Coal Commissioners?

Mr. REMER: And also how much is paid in salaries to the trade union officials?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Sir A. KNOX: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will state the total face value of contracts entered into between the Export Credits Department and all overseas countries, excluding the Soviet Re-publics, during the present Parliament?

Mr. GILLETT: From the 10th June, 1929, to the 6th June, 1931, the Export Credits Guarantee Department entered into contracts with British exporters covering credits for £7,331,844 in respect of exports to all overseas countries, excluding Russia.

Sir A. KNOX: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will state the total face value of contracts entered into between the Export Credits Department and the Soviet Government during the present Parliament?

Mr. GILLETT: From 10th June, 1929, to 6th June, 1931, the Export Credits Guarantee Department entered into contracts with British exporters covering credits for £7,422,620 in respect of exports to Russia.

Sir A. KNOX: Why should the Soviet Government, which is the Government of a Communist State, need more credit than all the other countries put together?

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. SANDHAM: 61 and 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he can inform this House as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the need for the setting up of a national cotton control board whose function should be the purchase of raw cotton as well as the disposal of the finished cotton products of Lancashire;
(2) if he will indicate the comparative values of cotton cloth exports from this country in 1927 and 1930–31 covering a single year in each period; if he can yet inform the House of the results accruing from the Government's efforts at coordination of this industry; and to what extent those efforts are directed to bringing sections of the industry into larger units covering ultimately all productive manufacturing and marketing processes?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated in his reply of 12th May to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), he hopes on the occasion of the Vote of his Department to make as complete a statement as is possible regarding the reorganisation of the cotton trade. As regards the comparative values of cotton cloth exports in 1927 and the recent year, the total domestic exports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom amounted to 4,117 million square yards of a declared value of £109,996,000 in 1927, and to 1,793 million square yards of a declared value of £45,050,000 in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1931.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the request of the organised workers in the industry for a reorganisation of the industry on these lines, and will he speed up the reorganisation?

Mr. SMITH: I think any right hon. Friend is aware of those facts and has had them under consideration.

Mr. SANDHAM: Can my hon. Friend say whether action is likely to be taken?

Mr. SMITH: No, I could not say.

SHIPPING SALES (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the provision of credit guarantees for the sale of old British merchant ships to foreigners is still under consideration; and, if so, whether the representatives of the British seamen will be consulted before coming to a conclusion?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The question of giving credit guarantees in respect of the sale of existing shipping to foreign interests is being considered in connection with proposals for similar credit facilities in respect of the building of new ships and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all relevant considerations will be taken into account.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will my hon. Friend answer the last part of my question, as to whether the representatives of the British seamen will be consulted on this matter?

Mr. SMITH: I said that all relevant considerations would be taken into account, and I think that among other relevant considerations the seamen would be considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the seamen will be taken into consultation as being the people most concerned in this matter?

Mr. SMITH: I do not think I can go further than to say that, if British seamen have any representations to make on this matter, their representations will be heard.

TARIFFS.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade on
how many occasions during 1930 this country received tariff concessions in Europe, the United States of America, and the Dominions, respectively; and which countries raised their tariffs against imports from this country during the same period?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid that it would be difficult to answer this question in exactly the form in which it is asked, but the hon. Member will find information as to revisions of customs tariffs in 1930 which were of importance to United Kingdom trade in the "Board of Trade Journal" for 1st January last, of which I am sending him a copy.

BANKRUPTCIES, MANCHESTER AND SALFORD.

Mr. REMER (for Sir GERALD HURST): 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons have become bankrupt in Manchester and Salford in the two years ended 31st May, 1931; and how this figure compares with that of corresponding bankruptcies in the previous two years?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The number of bankruptcies in Manchester and Salford in the two years ended 31st May, 1931, was 308; in the previous two years it was 296.

GERMANY, FRANCE, AND UNITED STATES.

Mr. G. GIBSON: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the export" to and imports from Germany, France, and the United States of America in 1928, 1929, and 1930 of manufactured upper-leathers required for boots and shoes?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GIBSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that during the past year the experts of these goods from this country have gone down and the imports have gone up?

Mr. SMITH: I think that the figures will convey the facts.

Following is the answer:


The following STATEMENT shows the total declared value of the Imports into, and Exports from, the United Kingdom of upper leather (other than patent, varnished, japanned and enamelled) registered during each of the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, as consigned from, and to, Germany, France and the United States of America, respectively.


—
1928.
1929.
1930.


Total Imports consigned from—
£
£
£


Germany
…
…
1,799,223
1,720,634
1,616,005


France
…
…
925,500
904,062
1,008,758


United States of America
…
…
1,398,936
1,247,711
1,245,432


Exports—


Domestic produce and manufactures, consigned to—


Germany
…
…
67,399
64,481
40,470


France
…
…
188,682
89,824
78,851


United States of America
…
…
1,548,282
1,277,370
656,075


Imported merchandise, consigned to—


Germany
…
…
28,416
61,845
36,946


France
…
…
31,014
29,649
35,189


United States of America
…
…
176,462
252,256
110,705


The figures for 1930 are provisional.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BUTTER.

Sir W. DAVISON: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken by his Department to prevent cheap Russian butter being mixed with British butter and sold to the public as British farmhouse butter; and whether he is satisfied as to the adequacy of the arrangements which have been made both in the interest of the British farmer and also of the general public?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The sale of a blend of butter containing either Russian or any other foreign butter as "British farmhouse butter" would constitute an offence against the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, in respect of which proceedings could be taken either by my Department or by any other interested party. I have no reason to suppose that such misrepresentation is taking place, but the general question of requiring all imported butter and blends containing imported butter to be marked with an indication of origin will be carefully considered in the light of the report of the Merchandise Marks Standing Committee on this subject which was published last week.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the matter forward as rapidly as possible in view of the anxiety of the British public in this regard?

Dr. ADDISON: I started to do this 24 hours after the report appeared.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does that mean that it is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to carry out the recommendations of the committee and to apply the national mark to butter.

Dr. ADDISON: That was not its recommendation. I have its recommendations under consideration.

FRUIT-GROWING INDUSTRY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention bus been drawn to large crops of fruit expected by British growers this year; and whether he will prepare plans to prevent the financial loss and wastage that occurred last year through the market being glutted by foreign fruit and fruit pulp?

Viscount LYMINGTON: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the fact that there is every likelihood of a heavy black currant harvest this year, he will take steps to prevent the dumping of foreign black currants which occurred last year to the detriment of the home growers?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that prospects are good for certain fruit crops, including black currants. Except for the protection of our own crops from disease, I have no power to restrict or prohibit the importation of fruit or fruit pulp, but
effective help will be forthcoming under the Agricultural Marketing Bill when it becomes law and a producers' board is formed. Moreover, a Bill is about to be introduced in another place to enable a standardisation scheme under the National Mark to be applied to jam made from home-grown fruit; the National Mark scheme for canned fruit has recently been extended, and it is hoped that next year the scheme will be further extended to cover also plums and bottled fruits.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that "home-made" fruit is quite different from "home-grown" fruit?

Dr. ADDISON: That is why the Bill is being introduced.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In the Agricultural Marketing Bill, is there any sign of protection against foreign imports?

Dr. ADDISON: That is not the question on the Paper.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the establishment of an import board, which would have the effect desired?

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has discussed with fruit growers any proposals to enable the public to distinguish between jam made from home-grown fruit and jam made from foreign fruit?

Dr. ADDISON: An investigation is being carried out by my Department into the best method of operating a National Mark scheme for jam if and when the necessary legislation, which is being introduced in another place, is passed. When the investigation is completed, proposals will be discussed in the ordinary way not only with growers but with other interests concerned.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fruit-growing industry, while thankful for small mercies, wishes the Merchandise Marks Act to be applied?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I am aware of that fact, and we have looked into the matter with great care and with the best good will. The difficulty, I understand, is as to how it could be administered so as to prove effective. That is the matter which stands in the way.

GREY SQUIRRELS.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a report on the recent meeting at the Ministry on grey squirrels has been published; and what action has been taken in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: A report of the meeting referred to was issued to the Press on the 14th May and was given wide publicity. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. In accordance with a resolution passed at the meeting, a leaflet describing the damage done by and the methods of destroying grey squirrels is being printed and copies will be sent to County Agricultural Committees and to the various organisations representing those concerned in the ownership, management and occupation of agricultural land, urging them to take all steps within their power to encourage the destruction of this pest.

HAY AND STRAW (IMPORTS).

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of hay and straw imported into this country for the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 respectively; from what countries these imports have come; whether these importations are subject to licence; and whether precautions are taken to preclude the possibility of foot-and-mouth or any other disease coming in from the countries which export hay and straw.

Dr. ADDISON: I propose with my hon. Friend's permission to circulate a table showing the quantity of hay and straw imported into the United Kingdom from abroad during each of the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, and the countries from which these imports came. The Foreign Hay and Straw Orders of the Ministry prohibit the importation of hay and straw, except by special licence, from countries in which foot-and-mouth disease exists, but this prohibition does not apply to hay and straw used at the time of importation as packing for merchandise nor to manufactured straw not intended for use as fodder or litter for animals. No restrictions on importation are imposed in connection with any other disease.

Following is the table:


UNITED KINGDOM.


Imports of Hay and Straw.


Country whence consigned.
Quantity imported.


1928.
1929.
1930.


Hay.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Norway
260
1,378
6,532


Sweden
—
42
4


United States of America.
4,514
228
1,118


Union of South Africa.
10
55
2,831


Canada
50,098
86,857
26,348


Irish Free State
3,839
4,402
2,699


Australia
—
54
7


Channel Islands
—
—
36


Southern Rhodesia
—
—
4


Total
58,721
93,016
39,579


Straw.





Norway
—
—
65


United States of America.
12
6
2


Union of South Africa.
5
10
10


Canada
—
245
—


Irish Free State
546
424
512


Total
563
685
589

Note.—None of these importations was subject to licence.

In addition, 12 samples of hay and 6 samples of straw were imported under special licences during the above-mentioned years for experimental purposes. These samples were brought from Kenya, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden.

MINISTRY'S PAMPHLET T. X. 456.

Mr. PERKINS: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the losses suffered by farmers owing to the issue by the Ministry of incorrect instructions in Pamphlet T. X 456, of 3rd June, 1931, he will compensate farmers for such losses and issue a corrected notice of the South African quarantine regulations for the guidance of farmers in future?

Dr. ADDISON: The notice of 3rd June, 1931, referred to in the question was an amendment of a previous notice which when issued in February last was believed to be correct. So far as I am aware, there are no incorrect instructions in the circular of the 3rd June and there is no necessity for the issue of a further amending notice. I know of only one case where difficulty has arisen in
respect of the export of three ducks and I cannot admit any liability for the expenses referred to.

MILK.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, when considering with the Ministry of Health alterations in the regulations for the grading and designations of milk, and before coming to any decision, he will consult the advisory committee of the Agricultural Council for England and Wales on this matter'?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has already received a report, on this subject which was adopted by the Council of Agriculture for England last year. He will consider it in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but legislation would be necessary before any alterations could be made in the order as to the grading and designations of milk.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. BUTLER: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will summon a conference of tithe payers, tithe owners, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to discuss with him problems arising from the present incidence of tithe?

Dr. ADDISON: As I said in the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight Captain P. Macdonald) on Thursday last, I am hoping to arrange a conference with some of the parties concerned for a discussion of existing difficulties.

Mr. BUTLER: In view of the extreme urgency of this problem, particularly in East Anglia, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the conference will be summoned as soon as possible?

Dr. ADDISON: I think that, already, arrangements have been started to convene it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUE TAX.

Mr. DENMAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated cost of the proposed Land Value Tax to be paid by
the Commissioners of Crown Lands on their estates in London and elsewhere, respectively?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. Friend to Clauses 19 and 20 of the Finance Bill. I do not see how any cost would be incurred by the Crown Lands Commissioners under the proposed taxation.

Mr. DENMAN: 44.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the estimated cost of the proposed Land Value Tax on properties in his control?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I would refer my hon. Friend to Clauses 19 and 20 of the Finance Bill, from which it would appear that the properties which are under my control are exempt from taxation.

Major the Marquess of TITCH-FIELD: 64.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if he can give an estimate of the amount of tax levied under the Finance Bill on land belonging to the churches?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): It is estimated that about £72,000 per annum would be payable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of their properties, the net revenues from which are applied to providing incomes for the clergy in the more necessitous parishes. The information is not available upon which an estimate could be given of the amount of the tax on glebe lands and other properties belonging to incumbents of benefices throughout the country.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is a wise policy to deprive the Church of this large sum of money?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely a matter of opinion.

Sir K. WOOD: Have the Ecclesiastical Commissioners made any representations to the Government?

Mr. DENMAN: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have been in consultation with the authorities on the details of this Measure.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: What effect will this have on the stipend of the clergy; will it mean a reduction of pay?

Mr. DENMAN: That is not the precise effect. The effect of the taxation will be to diminish the surplus available for distribution only in certain necessitous cases.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Surely that is the same thing.

Mr. DENMAN: The difference is the difference between taking off something from existing incomes and failing to add something.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Will the hon. Gentleman explain that subtle difference to the trade unions of the country?

Mr. DENMAN: We are very well aware of the distinction between the reduction and the maintenance of income.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

RURAL SERVICES (BANK HOLIDAYS).

Mr. DAY: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of post offices and public telephones in rural districts that are completely closed on Bank Holidays?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): I have no exact figures. As a general rule non-telegraph sub-offices in rural districts are closed altogether on Bank Holidays unless undue public inconvenience would be caused. With few exceptions telegraph sub-offices in rural districts are open for a period in the morning. Public telephone facilities are usually available when the post office is closed.

Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman considering the provision of automatic telephones for trunk calls in the rural districts?

Mr. ATTLEE: That matter does not arise out of the question.

STAFF.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General how many aliens are employed by the Post Office in Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. ATTLEE: So far as I am aware, no aliens are employed in the Post Office.

SURPLUS.

Mr. SORENSEN: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General the aggregate amounts of Post Office surplus transferred to revenue for each of the years between 1921 and 1930, inclusive?

Mr. ATTLEE: As the reply contains a large number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


Deficit:
…
…
£


1921–22
…
…
9,577,000


Surplus:


1922–23
…
…
3,343,000


1923–24
…
…
2,989,000


1924–25
…
…
5,070,000


1925–26
…
…
3,400,000


1926–27
…
…
3,950,000


1927–28
…
…
6,200,000


1928–29
…
…
8,100,000


1929–30
…
…
9,200,000


1930–31
…
…
10,100,000

UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the representations made to him by the Union of Post Office Workers for extended recognition and, in particular, for permission for branch secretaries to transact union business during their official hours of duty as postal servants as a right; and whether he intends to concede these demands?

Mr. ATTLEE: I have the matter under consideration; but am not yet in a position to state my conclusions.

Sir G. PENNY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider deeply why this union should be given special privileges in respect of the demands which are being made?

Mr. BOWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the restrictive regulations under which these branch secretaries operate have been in force for 25 years and that no change has been made in that time; and will he also give consideration to that fact?

Mr. ATTLEE: I have already said that I have the matter under consideration and full consideration will be given to all these matters.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman allow other Post Office workers to work at their allotments during business hours?

Oral Answers to Questions — BOTANIC GARDENS, REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. CARTER: 42.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the future use of the Botanic Gardens, Regent's Park?

Mr. LANSBURY: While all the necessary details have not yet been worked out, I am now able to say that it is the intention to open the gardens to the public free of charge and to maintain them as a part of Regent's Park.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROMAN AMPHITHEATRE, CHESTER.

Mr. BENSON: 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware of the discovery of the Roman amphitheatre at Chester; and whether he is prepared to co-operate with the city authorities for its preservation?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, Sir. I am greatly interested in the discovery of the amphitheatre at Chester, and I am fully prepared to co-operate, as far as possible, with the city authorities for its preservation.

Mr. BENSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department in communication with the local authority?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to have a Roman show at this Roman amphitheatre and give landowners to the lions?

Mr. LANSBURY: God gave the land to the people.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Sir G. PENNY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to any decision as regards giving legislative effect to the recommendations of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance; and, if so, when he intends to place the Government proposals before the House?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment has yet been considered by the Government; and, if so, what action they propose taking in the matter?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes that legislation should be introduced to deal with the questions raised by the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance before the House rises for the autumn Recess?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to take any, and, if so, what action as a result of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, or whether it is his intention to await the publication of the final report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Within the next few days a statement will be made under conditions which will, I hope, permit of a discussion.

WIGAN.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the district supervised from the Wigan Employment Exchange who have had their unemployment benefits disallowed because they accepted a course of training in some occupation for which they received no remuneration and were not guaranteed work at the end of the course; and whether she will consider dealing with this kind of disallowance?

Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics giving the information desired are not available. All disallowances for unemployment benefit are imposed by the statutory authorities, with whose decisions I cannot interfere.

Mr. MACDONALD: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the area supervised from the Wigan Employment Exchange who have been offered a course of training, and the number that have accepted, during the year ended 31st May, 1931, specifying the number of females?

Miss BONDFIELD: The training facilities afforded by the Department
were brought to the notice of all unemployed persons who appear to be suitable, and I cannot therefore give statistics of the number to whom they were offered. In the period in question 156 applications were received from women under the scheme for women's training, of which 49 were accepted, and 386 from men for training at Government instructional centres, of which 222 were accepted. The total number required to attend transfer instructional centres, in-eluding those who applied voluntarily, during the period was 512.

PIECEWORK.

Mr. MILLS: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been called to the decision of certain referees that a 10-hour day without a set wage is suitable employment; and whether she will introduce legislation to ensure that such a decision shall not be repeated?

Miss BONDFIELD: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to a case of which he has sent me particulars, I should point out that this case is at present before the Umpire on appeal.

Mr. MILLS: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that manufacturers of chip potatoes who supply the catering trade are insisting as a condition of employment upon a 10-hour working day without any set wage except piecework; and whether such a firm will come within the scope of the proposed catering trade board?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have no information as to the conditions obtaining generally in this trade, although my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to a particular case. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ROOMS (STRANGERS' ADDRESSES).

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the address recently given by a member of a foreign Embassy in a Committee room of the House, he will bring to the notice of the Soviet Embassy the un-desirability of such a practice?

Mr. MACLEAN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the address recently given by a member of a foreign
Legation in a Committee room of the House, he will bring to the notice of the Finnish. Legation the undesirability of such a practice?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both questions is in the negative. They raise a matter of some delicacy, and I suggest that Members in all parts of the House might consider whether, in using the Committee Rooms of the House for addresses by members of the Diplomatic Corps upon controversial questions, they are really furthering the objects which they have in view, or whether they are not adopting a practice open to grave objection.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not contrary to diplomatic usage that members of a foreign Embassy or Legation should give public addresses on controversial subjects; has not the interference of diplomats in the internal affairs of other countries led to those diplomats being handed their passports; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that members of Embassies and Legations should refrain in future from delivering addresses of that character?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who has had very great experience of diplomatic statements, will recognise that that is the character and nature of the statement which I have made, and I hope its complete significance will not be lost.

Mr. MILLS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Finland recently, on the invitation of Conservative Members, explained the operation of——

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. MACLEAN: Will my right hon. Friend now circulate to all parties in the House, particularly the party which originally raised this question and which originally sinned in the matter, a copy of his answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer given seems to cover all these points.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT LABOUR.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the evidence given before the committee of inquiry into port labour (the Maclean Committee) has been published; and
whether it will be made available to Members?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir. In view of the considerable volume of this evidence, some of which is of local interest, I do not think that general publication can be justified. If desired, I shall be glad to arrange for a set of the stencilled documents to be placed in the Library.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is nay right hon. Friend aware that this evidence very much affects the proposed legislation with regard to the interim report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and is she aware that it would be most unfair to the dock labourers generally if this evidence were not published?

Miss BONDFIELD: All the evidence placed before the dock labour inquiry will be considered by the Commission.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot we have this evidence before us? Did not my right hon. Friend state that it would not be published? Where do we stand?

Miss BONDFIELD: What I said was that the report of the dock labour inquiry will be given to the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance direct.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but in the meantime are we not being asked to legislate? This affects my constituency very intimately, and I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making a statement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DEBT PAYMENTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he has information that the German Government propose to ask for a suspension of War debt payments?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Major GLYN: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sums paid as war debts by France, Italy, Rumania,
Greece and Portugal since the Treaty of Versailles; and how much has been paid as reparations by Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey?

Following is the reply:


WAR DEBT PAYMENTS, including payments due on 15th June, 1931.


(Taking £l=$4.86=20 gold marks=20 Reichsmarks=25 gold francs=124 French francs= 24 gold crowns=92 lire.)


——
To United Kingdom.
To U.S.A.
To France.
To Italy.
Total (in sterling).




£



£


France
…
43,600,000
$200,000,000
—
—
84,752,000





=£41,152,000





Italy
…
23,000,000 (net)
$39,620,000
—
—
31,152,000





=£8,152,000





Rumania
…
875,000
$2,700,000
Gold francs
Lire
1,791,000





=£556,000
5,939,000
11,250,000







=£238,000
=£122,000



Greece
…
1,175,000
$300,000
French francs
—
1,258,000





=£62,000
2,567,000








=£21,000




Portugal
…
1,550,000
—
—
—
1,550,000




REPARATION PAYMENTS, including payments due on 15th June, 1931.


Germany
…
R.M. 20,526,000,000 = £1,026,300,000 (including the value of deliveries in kind and cessions of State Properties).
For details see reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Hull on 16th December, 1930.


Austria
…
Cash.
Nil.




Deliveries in kind and Armistice Deliveries
Gold Crowns 20,207,000 = £842,000.




Cessions of State Property
Valuation not determined.


Bulgaria
…
Cash
Gold Francs 66,000,000=£2,640,000.




Armistice Deliveries and State Properties
Valuation not determined.


Turkey
…
No reparations payable under the Treaty of Lausanne.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. TINKER: 66.
asked the Minister of Health when the arrears of pension to be paid to widows under the amended Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act will be dealt with; and wehn they will be notified of this?

Miss LAWRENCE: 4,400 English cases were awaiting the passing of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1931. In 3,000 of these cases the widows have been notified that their order books have been issued to the selected post offices and that pension with full arrears may be drawn to-morrow, the first pay-day after the passing of the Act. In each of the remaining 1,400 cases a notification has been received, usually from the local authority in respect of relief paid in excess pending the settlement

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): As the reply contains a number of figures, I am causing it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

of the pension claim, that a claim will be made against the arrears. In these cases the widows are being informed that the first payment of pension will be made on Tuesday the 23rd instant and that any balance of arrears due will be issued to them as soon as the amount of the claim for advances has been notified to the Department by the authority concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL, INSURANCE AND PENSIONS SCHEMES.

Sir G. PENNY: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government will consider the possibility of investigating an all-in insurance scheme, including unemployment and health benefits and pensions, to be applicable to a large section of the population?

Miss LAWRENCE: This was one of the subjects considered by the Cabinet Committee which was set up to make a general survey of the national insurance and pensions schemes, and is dealt with in their report, which is still under the consideration of the Government.

Sir G. PENNY: Will the hon. Lady keep in mind that it is far better to have a bona fide insurance scheme than this haphazard dole system?

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. SANDHAM: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that since the passing of the Acts which permitted property owners to increase rents of working-class houses by 40 per cent. above the pre-War figure the wages of the working classes have been reduced by over 30 per cent., he will introduce legislation with a view to easing this situation?

Miss LAWRENCE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Did not the previous answer refer to the forthcoming report, and can the hon. Lady now say when that report is likely to be available?

Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the previous answer.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will not the hon. Lady suggest to the Prime Minister that the Government should give facilities for the Bill that I introduced on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).

Captain WALLACE: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education if the National Association of Schoolmasters, which represents over 7,600 men teachers, is to be represented on the committee which is now being appointed to reconsider the scales of salaries of teachers in elementary schools?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): My right hon. Friend
does not propose to accord representation on the committee to the National Association of Schoolmasters.

Captain WALLACE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this committee will be more useful if it has full representation?

Mr. JONES: The National Union of Teachers represents the overwhelming majority of male and female teachers in elementary schools.

Captain WALLACE: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that there is an organised minority of over 7,000?

Mr. JONES: There are many other organisations with similar membership which would also require representation.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is it not a fact that many of these 7,600 teachers are also members of the National Union of Teachers?

Mr. JONES: I believe that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government with reference to the amendment of the law relating to lotteries, raffles and sweepstakes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 11th instant to questions by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thomas (Sir G. Penny).

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to consider whether the police force of this country would be better employed in detecting crime——

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Charles Williams.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS (GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a return showing all loans and the
payment of interest on which or whose capital, or both, is guaranteed by Parliament?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member will find a full statement in the Annual Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Why cannot we have it in a short clear form so that the country may know the precise position?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Finance Accounts, he will find that it would take me 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour to read it all.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the statement, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING ACCIDENT, CAMBRIDGE.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that in the flying accident resulting in the death of Mr. Kenneth George Murray, at Marshalls Aerodrome, Cambridge Public Flying Display, on Saturday, a period of 20 minutes occurred before a doctor's services were procured, and that when the injured pilot had been extracted after 20 minutes work in the wreckage there was a further period of waiting before the ambulance arrived, and if he will investigate as to the circumstances of neither medical nor ambulance transport services being available for instant use and if he will state whether his Department had been consulted or had offered assistance in the organisation of this meeting, and if he will issue immediate regulations to prevent reoccurrence of such lack of safety facilities at all future public flying displays?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Inquiry is being made into the points mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but I should perhaps say that the display at which this regrettable accident occurred was a privately arranged meeting held at an aerodrome licensed for private use only. One of the conditions of the licence is that "adequate first-aid appliances must be kept at the aerodrome."

Captain BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although this is an aerodrome for private use the public had to pay to enter? Secondly, has it not been the custom during past flying seasons for his Department to offer, on very advantageous, almost nominal, terms assistance to the organisers of all such displays, and was this assistance offered and accepted or refused in this instance?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I can only say that we had no information of the meeting at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — STORM DAMAGE, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. HANNON (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement regarding the disastrous storm which visited certain parts of Birmingham yesterday afternoon and what measures have been taken for the immediate relief of the homeless and suffering?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. I had a copy of this question sent to the Minister of Health at the same time that I communicated it to you, Mr. Speaker, and surely the Minister of Health ought to be here to answer a question of this importance.

HON. MEMBERS: Resign!

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the absence of the Minister must be due to an oversight.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us what the business will be on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: The discussion of a Motion to confer on the Chairman of the Standing Committee considering the Consumers' Council Bill the power to select Amendments; and the Committee stage of the Consumers' Council, Money Resolution.

Sir K. WOOD: In reference to the attempt further to curtail discussion in Committee upstairs and in this House, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has obtained the consent of his Liberal Friends?

Mr. SANDHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that seven hours were wasted on the first two lines of the first Clause of that Bill? [Interruption.] I was there, and I know.

ROMFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

The Chairman of Ways and Means, in pursuance of Standing Order 91 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the Romford Urban District Council Bill [Lords], though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Bill.

BILLS REPORTED.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (COWES AND YARMOUTH) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

ROTHERHAM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

ROYSTON AND BRODSWORTH GAS BILL [Lords].

COVENTRY EXTENSION BILL [Lords].

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 11th June].

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Assessment and recovery of tax.)

Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, to leave out the words "comprising agricultural land."
I do not propose to occupy the attention of the Committee very long with this Amendment; and owing to the exigencies of the form in which we are transacting business I could not if I would.
The purpose and effect of the Amendment are sufficiently obvious not to need elaboration on my part. Hitherto the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, albeit with a disarming smile on his countenance, has offered relentless and indiscriminate resistance to any of the suggested Amendments put forward to improve these Clauses, on the intriguing plea that this tax will be quite unworkable and quite impracticable unless it inflicts the grossest injury on a large section of the community. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I should say that was an overwhelming argument in favour of our case against this Measure; but surely that consideration does not apply to the Amendment I am now moving, which should commend itself to the favourable consideration of the Government. Under modern conditions it is difficult to define exactly what is "agricultural land" and what is "cultivation value." The Government have solved the difficulty in an arbitrary fashion by limiting the concession as to deducting the cultivation value to units comprising agricultural land as defined in Clause 27 of the Bill. No land other than agricultural land within the meaning of the Act will be allowed to have its cultivation value deducted from the land value for the purpose of the tax.
I cannot help thinking that on more mature consideration the Government will acknowledge that my suggestion is
a more equitable one, namely, that the owner of any land which can be proved to have any cultivation value should be allowed to deduct its cultivation value from the amount of the land value for the purpose of the tax. It is quite obvious that sites in the middle of great cities have no cultivation value. For example, there is the site upon which I stand, and upon which you, Sir Robert, and other hon. Members now sit, although I regret to say there is an ever growing volume of opinion that if the site of the Palace of Westminster were cleared of its associations and buildings and reverted to the condition in which it was when the monks of Thorney took it over in fee simple, when, presumably, it had some cultivation value, it might be more profitably utilised than at present, and at any rate would be of less detriment to the community. But as one passes from the centre of a town to its circumference one gradually approaches those units of land which, although they cannot be said to be agricultural land according to the definition Clause, certainly possess a cultivation value. The assessors should certainly be allowed some discrimination in cases such as these. The Solicitor-General has never ceased insisting upon the fact that the assessors, although I have no doubt whatever that to start with a great number of them will be completely ignorant of land and land valuation, will be individuals endowed with some modicum of common sense and sweet reasonableness and, therefore, should encounter no particular difficulty if my Amendment is adopted.
One of the ill effects which we fear from the operation of this tax is its detriment to the amenities of large towns and to the health of the inhabitants. For instance, unless my Amendment is adopted no owner of the type of unit which it is designed to include will be disposed either to create or to maintain open spaces. Buildings will be more than ever crowded together. Those large open spaces which are now the lungs of the town dwellers will become congested with bricks and mortar, and the aspect of suburban areas will be altered for the worse. Further, large gardens—I am not talking of market gardens—will inevitably disappear altogether; not only large gardens, but any gardens, exceeding a capital value of £120. Gardens do
not come with the definition of agricultural land, although I should have thought that even in the eyes of an amateur assessor or of a Government draftsman a garden would possess some cultivation value. I press this Amendment upon the favourable consideration of the Government. It will impart to the Bill some of those essential features which it obviously lacks—common sense, equity and judgment; and, finally, it should appeal to the Government because it may have the effect of ingratiating some of those electors who have been antagonised by this Bill.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to another aspect of this Amendment, and it is that I think it will do no harm whatever to the Government Bill if it is accepted. It will, in fact, take out words that are entirely unnecessary. Clause 9, Sub-section (1, c), provides:
The amount of the cultivation value of any agricultural land comprised therein.
Consequently, the cultivation value applies only where there is agricultural land, and therefore these words appear to be entirely unnecessary. If they are taken out the Clause will read:
for the purpose of the charge of the tax, the land value of any land unit shall be reduced by the amount, if any, of the cultivation value thereof.
If it is not agricultural land under Clause 9 there will be no cultivation value and therefore it certainly appears that these words are unnecessary.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I hope the Solicitor-General and the Government will favourably consider this Amendment. This is not a proposal which would do any serious harm to the Bill, if indeed anything could do the Bill, as it stands, very much harm. The Solicitor-General will bear in mind that on Tuesdays and Thursdays my hon. Friends and myself have been doing our best to forward a Bill dealing with town planning, and in the course of the procedure on that Bill the Solicitor-General and other members of the Government have accepted many good suggestions for the preservation of open spaces in towns and urban areas. An Amendment of the sort we are now discussing is very necessary in order to do something to alleviate the hardship which the Land Value Tax will impose upon such areas. The right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) made a very powerful speech in regard to the proposed land tax in which he drew particular attention to Temple Gardens and open spaces in Gray's Inn, but the Solicitor-General, with his charming smile and flinty heart, refused to assist him to exempt those open spaces. We contend that those open spaces have very little agricultural value indeed within the meaning of the Act, but if that value were granted in the form of relief from taxation, it would be of some assistance in keeping that land which was given as they were told by the Creator to the people in the state in which the Creator presumably intended it to be.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) that the words do not make much difference as regards the operation of this Clause. It has already been pointed out that Clause 9 provides for
the amount of the cultivation value of any agricultural land.
On the other hand, I think it is obviously wise to leave these words in in order to make it quite clear that this cultivation value is in the case of agricultural land only. The Amendment does not raise that question at all. The question whether it is desirable to make a deduction in every case has already been decided. I think the Committee will agree that it would not simplify the Bill in any way to take out those words, and it might lead to some misunderstanding as to the exact meaning of the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Solicitor-General has altogether misunderstood the importance of this Amendment, and the value that we attach to it. It is really a matter which has a very serious bearing upon the whole aspect of our big towns in the future. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall was correct in saying that, as Clauses 8 and 9 stand, the cultivation value only is to be ascertained, I am afraid it was an oversight on our part not to move Amendments when we were discussing those Clauses, and, if we are successful in imposing our will on the Government, we shall certainly, on the Report stage, move to amend Clauses 8 and 9 so as to give a substantive value to the Amendment we are now considering.
May I give the Committee my own experience on this point? It is particularly brought home to me that an Amendment of this kind is really essential if this Bill is not to do great harm to the amenities of suburban areas in our large towns. I happen to live in a suburb of Birmingham which I have the honour to represent, called Edgbaston. In Edgbaston there is a large estate which a good many years ago was laid out by Lord Calthorpe on town planning lines. The estate was laid out for the wealthier section of the community as it existed at that time and, generally speaking, it is laid out on the plan of having every house surrounded by a large garden. This has produced a very delightful part of the town about a mile from the centre, but it has also provided a sort of lung which has been of immense value to the population who live in the poorer parts of the town nearer the centre, and if that land were to foe subjected to the tax as proposed under this Bill it would be impossible for that estate to keep up that part in the condition in which it is now. The inevitable result must be that, as the leases fall in, the owner 4.0 p.m. would have to relay out the whole property on different lines, exclude these great gardens which, with their big spreading trees, have been the admiration of all visitors to the town, and reconstruct on lines such as those to be seen in other places. In particular, I have seen them in Canada, where the large houses have such tiny gardens attached to them that they add nothing to the general amenity of the surroundings. Nothing depressed me more when I was in places like Montreal and Toronto than the striking difference between the Canadian practice and the practice in this country, namely, that whereas large houses in proximity to the centres of our big cities are almost invariably surrounded by large gardens, there they are of the smallest possible extent. I believe that to be due entirely to the land taxes in that country, and, unless something is done to relieve estates of that kind from the operation of this tax, I foresee a precisely similar result growing over here. Therefore, in the interests of amenity generally—and when I say "amenity" I am not merely talking of the people living in those places, but the whole populations in towns which benefit by it—this Amendment contains
a principle of substantial importance, and while I still hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman may see his way to give further consideration to the subject, if he does not, we shall feel it necessary to divide, at any rate, to show the importance we attach to the principle embodied in the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not deal with the question on its merits, because I thought the Amendment was moved under a misunderstanding. With regard to the point put about large gardens in the suburbs of Edgbaston, I do suggest that if that is a point which requires to be met, this will not be the way to meet it, or it will meet it extraordinarily inadequately. The cultivation value of these gardens would be, probably, quite negligible, and would not seriously affect the situation at all. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he recalls the criterion regarding cultivation value as the agricultural purpose for which at the time the land is used, that would make it, first of all, very difficult to value, because it would not be used for agricultural purposes at all. Secondly, if you could value it, I think that the figure would be a small one. But that is not the point I want to put. There are, as a matter of fact, two ways by which the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is already dealt with in the Bill. First of all, if, as he says, there is a series of interlocking agreements with regard to the use of this land, as is very often the case in big building estates where not more than one house is to be built to the acre, then that will be taken into account as an incumbrance under the First Schedule to the Bill, and, therefore, the land will be valued as land upon which only one house per acre can be built.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not statutory.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not merely binding on the lessor or lessee, but binding on the land, and where there are any interests of adjoining landowners, that would certainly almost apply to a case such as the right hon. Gentleman put. Secondly, under the Town and Country Planning Bill, if the land is planned with so many houses to the acre, as probably would be the case, again, that would be a statutory incumbrance which would be
taken into account by virtue of the First Schedule; or, again, under the new form of Clause 26 of the Town and Country Planning Bill, an Amendment to which has been put down to-day by the Minister, the owner would be able to give an undertaking to any town planning authority as regards the user of his land that he would not in perpetuity build more houses on that land. He would then be protected by having his land valued only for a single house of that type upon it. In my submission; those methods are satisfactory and proper methods of dealing with this problem, whereas the suggestion

that all land in the country should be valued for cultivation values, including the whole of London and every unit in London, is one which could have only one result, and that would be to enormously increase the labour, and thereby do just what we have so often been warned against—make this valuation impracticable.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 232.

Division No. 303.]
AYES.
[4.6 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley. J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, Fred


Arnott, John
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.


Ayles, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Montague. Frederick


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morley, Ralph


Barr, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Benson, G.
Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh


Blindell, James
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Brooke, W.
Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Perry, S. F.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Church, Major A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pole, Major D. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cove, William G.
Kinley, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lang, Gordon
Raynes, W. R.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dallas, George
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Romerll, H. G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, Charles
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards. E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Scott, James


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser. J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Freeman, Peter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gill, T. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith. Rennie (Penistone)


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Smith. Tom (Pontefract)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Malene, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gray, Milner
Manning, E. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mansfield, W.
Saremen, R.


Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Stephen, Campbell
Walker, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wise, E. F.


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Thurtle, Ernest
West, F. R.
Young, F. S. (Islington, North)


Tillett, Ben
Westwood, Joseph



Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.


Vaughan, David




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.


Albery, Irving James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dixey, A. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Meller, R. J.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Astor, Viscountess
Eden, Captain Anthony
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Atkinson, C.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston, S. M.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Muirhead, A. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Beaumont M. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ford, Sir P. J.
O'Connor, T. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peake, Capt, Osbert


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Penny, Sir George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bracken, B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buchan, John
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Purbrick, R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Butler, R. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reynolds. Col. Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Hanbury, C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Castle Stewart. Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Salmon, Major I.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Savery, S. S.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lambert. Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Cranborne, Viscount
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomas. Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thompson, Luke


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomson, Sir F.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, Viscount
Train, J.


Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt, P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Robert Hugh




Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Withers, Sir John James



Wayland, Sir William A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wells, Sydney R.
Womersley, W. J.
Captain Margesson and Captain


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Sir George Bowyer.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I find that, under the Guillotine Resolution, I am precluded from moving to report Progress or any similar Motion, but I take this opportunity to put the question to the Government as to what they propose to do after this somewhat inauspicious start of the week—whether they propose to accept the decision of the House and proceed with the business, or whether they themselves will make a Motion to report Progress, from which I am debarred, and which otherwise, of course, I should move.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am informed that the Amendment which has been moved is a drafting Amendment, having no bearing upon the substance of the Bill. In those circumstances, we propose to accept the drafting Amendment, and we will examine it—[HON. MBMBERS: "And swallow it!"]—and see whether it is properly described in that way or not. There will be another opportunity of considering it, and we now propose to proceed with the business.

HON. MEMBERS: Resign!

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no assessment shall be made on the personal representatives of any person, being one of several persons who were, on the first day of January in the year of charge, joint owners of the relevant estate in a land unit, unless such person was the survivor of the joint owners.
I move this Amendment in order to give the Committee an opportunity of dividing on a point of substance, which is not a drafting Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: rose——

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would obviously be very unsuitable that the Committee should divide upon this Amendment without understanding in the least what they are talking or dividing about. [An HON. MEMBER: "We know!"] One hon. Member says "We
know," but I think that probably, in view of the questions raised by the Amendment, it is only a very few persons who are aware of what exactly this Amendment would do. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it will agree with me that, however one looks upon it, it cannot be described as a point of any substance. It is a question of great legal technicality, and it may be questionable whether it is better to deal with this particular point in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or whether it would be better not so to deal with it. Whichever way it is done, it will have no material effect upon the land tax whatsoever. The two Amendments which have been put together deal with quite different points, and I am sure that the Committee would desire to understand the exact distinction between them. The first Amendment deals with the question whether the executor of a trustee-owner, whether sole trustee or not, should or should not be assessable unless and until he has assumed the liabilities, not only of the testator, but of the trusteeship. That may raise a very interesting principle of Chancery law, but that is about all that it does. The position, under the Bill as it stands at present, is this: The special case with which this Amendment purports to deal is referred to in Sub-section (4) of Clause 14, in these words:
The tax assessed shall, if assessed on or before the first day of June next after the end of the year of charge, be payable to the Commissioners on the first day of July next following and if assessed on some date later than the said, first day of June, be so payable on the expiration of one month from the date of the assessment.
Sub-section (3) is as follows:
The tax chargeable on any person for any financial year shall be assessed by the Commissioners on him or on his personal representatives, and an assessment expressed to be made on any person (whether alone or jointly with others) shall, in the event of his death before the date of assessment, have effect as an assessment on his personal representatives.
The Committee will see, therefore, that the period of time with which this Amendment
purports to deal is the time between the death of an owner and the acceptance of the trusteeship under a will or other similar document by some successor to that owner. The Committee will appreciate that during that intervening period it is obviously necessary to have someone to assess to tax. Under the proposal put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, there is no one who would be taxable during the period between the trusteeship arising and the acceptance by the trustee of his duties as trustee of the testator, and it is a little difficult to appreciate exactly the meaning of the Amendment. If the Committee will bear with me, I will go through the words of the Amendment. They will see the difficulty as regards the second half of the Amendment. It is on the Paper, but I am afraid that, in order to make the point which I wish to make—[Interruption]—I understand that it is agreed on the opposite benches that this Amendment does not operate properly. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) means, of course I am prepared to sit down and say no more about it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) says it will operate if I sit down. My opinion is that it will not operate, because, if this Amendment be introduced, you will have a period of time in which there will be no owner and no one to be assessed in respect of a particular land unit. I am sure that Members of the Committee will not desire to stop me reading the Amendment if it will assist them in their understanding it. It says:
Provided that no assessment shall be made on the personal representatives of a deceased owner who was a trustee of the estate"—
that is to say, this Amendment only deals with a man who has been owner by virtue of the fact that he was a trustee of an estate—
by reference to which the ownership of the unit is determined"—
[Interruption.] It is in page 15, line 2. [Interruption.] I am so sorry; I thought that the hon. Member thought that I was referring to the wrong matter. It goes on:
unless and until they shall be entitled to act and have acted in the trust"—
so that there must be a period of time between the time when the deceased owner trustee dies and the time when the trust is accepted by his executors. The Amendment proceeds:
and in any such case the assessment shall be on 'the trustee' of the unit by that description.
It is this passage of the Amendment which I find it extremely difficult to understand, because at that moment the original trustee is dead, and clearly the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to assess him. On the other hand, his successor, who would be his executor, is not to be assessed, under the first portion of the Amendment, until such time as he accepts the trusteeship. Therefore, it is impossible for any assessment to be made on the trustee of the unit, because there is not such a person in existence. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he looks at it, will appreciate that there is a hiatus of some sort in this Amendment, because there is no provision for calling anyone, for the purpose of assessment in this intervening period, a trustee; and yet the Commissioners are told that they have to assess a person and call him "'the trustee' of the unit." In these circumstances, I think it is clear that this Amendment as it stands is one which really would make no sense, and, however the hon. and learned Member desires to deal with the position, it is not quite clear, because, clearly, there must be someone during this period who is to be assessed. Clearly it cannot be the dead man, and clearly, on the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, it cannot be the executor who becomes the trustee. As far as one is able to see, there is no one else who could be assessed. It is inevitable that during that period, if you have to make your assessment, owing to the time which is stated in Sub-section (4), you must have someone nominally whom you can assess, and I should be glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman who it is that he proposes to assess during this intervening period between the death of the trustee-owner and the acceptance of the trust by the executor of that owner.
I will come, if I may, to the second Amendment, which really raises rather a different point. The second Amendment which it is proposed to insert, also at the same point, following, presumably, upon the first Amendment, is one that deals
with assessments on the personal representatives of a person who was one of several who, on the 1st January in the year of charge, were joint owners of the estate in the land unit. It provides that no assessment should be made on such person unless such person is a survivor of the joint owners. As regards the position there raised, it is one of admitted difficulty, and I quite appreciate that it may be necessary to add some words to the Sub-section. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing our attention to this case of the adjustment of rights as between joint owners. I do not think the precise words of the Amendment are quite appropriate to bringing about what is obviously his intention, but there is clearly some real point to be met, and, where you have one or more persons who are jointly assessable surviving, there should be some sort of provision on these lines. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my undertaking, I shall be very glad to consider the exact form of words to deal with what is clearly a perfectly genuine case. It is one of the matters that have been overlooked. As regards the first Amendment, for the very definite reason that it leaves the assessment entirely in the air, without anyone at all to assess, we cannot accept it, but we shall be glad on Report to put in something in the sense of the second Amendment.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: The Solicitor-General ha" been referring to the second Amendment as the first. In regard to that, after what he has said, we will not press it to a Division, but I am not satisfied, speaking for myself, with the explanation that has been given in answer to the second.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: These Amendments are in the names of the most distinguished legal luminaries of the party opposite. After all that has been said as to the need of adequate discussion of these matters, we have a formal Motion by one of these selfsame legal luminaries and, later on, a second speech in which he says he is not satisfied with the explanation that has been made, giving no ground whatever for his failure to be satisfied. That is not a very reasonable way to treat the House of Commons, and it is not exactly supporting the argument that adequate discussion of these matters
is not allowed. I do not know whether, suddenly, the importance of the law is put into a secondary place compared with the railway time tables. Possibly, instead of explaining to the Committee the real legal objection which the party has to these Amendments, the Whips assisting the legal luminaries are looking up the time tables to see when further Members are likely to arrive. When the time tables are all right, I have no doubt the law will be let loose. We are very anxious for legal guidance on these issues. I have no doubt hon. Members opposite want no legal guidance, but clearly the issue is an extremely technical one and we are informed that it is of sufficient importance to necessitate the hon. and learned Gentleman going to a Division unless he can be satisfied. We have had an explanation from the Solicitor-General which seems to me entirely adequate and it seems to be most unfair in the special situation which hon. Members have been creating for their advantage—— [Interruption.] I do not know that I am complaining as much as the hon. Member is complaining, but there is a very real ground for a fuller statement to be made than that which has been vouchsafed.
I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if it is reasonable for the party opposite to insist that there shall be instructions given to place the assessment of the tax upon an individual who is actually not in existence. There are several Members of the Bar opposite who speak to us at very great length upon these issues when it seems to suit their purpose. Here they are challenged with a perfectly reasonable objection that, if there is to be an effective system of taxation, you should at least see that the party assessing the tax can define the person upon whom the tax is placed, and it is surely reasonable that hon. Members opposite should meet us at least by a modification of their Amendment. I understand that the complaints that have been made in the past by the party opposite in the matter of taxation have been that taxes have been imposed by us in such a way that those who were taxed could not clearly visualise the amount that they were taxed, and that very often the authorities responsible for imposing the tax were not clearly enough instructed by the terms of the legislation for which this House is responsible. At
any rate, this Amendment has been proved beyond all question to be one which would give no light and leading to the assessment authorities.
What ground is there for insisting on the taxing of a trustee at a period when he may not be actually in existence? Who does the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose shall pay the tax? Does he propose that they shall go round collecting it out of thin air? Is this a new method of calling down manna from the skies? What has the hon. and learned Gentleman in his legal mind to get us out of the difficulty that he proposes to impose upon the nation? He sits solidly there, nodding his head wisely, I have no doubt with a vast fund of knowledge upon which to draw in order to assist us in our difficulties. He has never in the past shown any bashful-ness where the interests of his party seem likely to be affected, to pour out without limit his great fund of knowledge. Here he comes with an Amendment which has no ground for it, which will create nothing but disorder for those who are responsible for imposing the taxation and all the time, although we point out to him the stupidity of the proposal, he has not a single word of explanation to justify the Amendment. It seems to me that I must give up the hon. and learned Gentleman. I look round the benches opposite in my desire to get this legal guidance. I see, for example, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). I see the hon. Member is leaving the House. That is a feather in my cap. I have never managed that before. Surely the party opposite see something in the strength of our arguments when, immediately the matter is put to the test, one highly learned Member sits dumb and silent, unable to meet the arguments and questions put to him, and others feel that the case is so hopeless that, when their turn comes, they depart in despair. Perhaps the hon. Member has also gone to look at the railway time tables now that the job is done.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES-MONSELL: On a point of Order. Several times recently hon. Members have been called to order for not keeping strictly to the question before the House. I am wondering when the hon. Member who is now in possession of the
Committee is going to speak to the Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to ask if the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee is not very strictly relevant to the discussion and to the explanation of the Amendment given by the Solicitor-General.

The CHAIRMAN: I must rule that the hon. Member is as much entitled to ask for an explanation of the Amendment put down by the Opposition as a Member of the Opposition is to ask for an explanation of an Amendment or a Clause put down by the Government. I am not responsible for the roundabout way in which it is done.

Mr. HUDSON: I am obliged to you, Sir Robert. I admit that the processes which I have to adopt in order to extract——

Mr. WISE: May I ask which Amendment we are discussing? I recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that he was satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Solicitor-General that one of the Amendments on the Paper was entirely unworkable and had no meaning, but I do not recall that he has withdrawn that Amendment. Are we discussing both of those Amendments, or one of them or neither of them?

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is to insert words in Clause 14, page 15, line 2, and when I called upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to move the Amendment, I said that the fourth Amendment on the Paper would be discussed along with it, and the two Amendments are supposed to be under discussion at the moment.

Mr. WISE: The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the order had got inverted; that the first had got in front of the second and the third in front of the first. I do not know which Amendment has been withdrawn and which Amendment we are now discussing.

The CHAIRMAN: No Amendment has been withdrawn as far as I know.

Mr. STEPHEN: I understand from you, Sir Robert, that we are discussing the Amendment at the top of the page and that afterwards we shall come to the
second Amendment which has been mentioned. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment said that the second Amendment should have come first, and the first second. I desire to ask you, Sir, upon a point of Order, whether that being the case there is not some way in which we shall be able to take the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member desires to be first instead of the one first moved?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will notice that both Amendments come in at the same place. I am not responsible for their order on the Paper.

Mr. WISE: May I ask if the learned ex-Solicitor-General, the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), will explain to the Committee the particular Amendment we are now discussing?

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hudson.

Mr. HUDSON: When I was interrupted by the many points of Order, I was, after all, pursuing a proper course, and I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, for your support. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will continue their cheers.

Mr. MacLAREN: I take the cheering which is going on as a reflection upon you, Sir, and I want to put a point of Order. [Interruption.] There is a point of Order involved, and I have been watching it all the time. Three Amendments are on the Order Paper. One of those Amendments means nothing, and it has been withdrawn. I want to know from you, Sir Robert, the point of substance which the Committee are now discussing, seeing that there are three Amendments to be inserted at the same place. One Amendment contradicts two of the Amendments and it has been withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know of any Amendment which has been withdrawn. I think that it is appreciated that the second Amendment on the Paper, on page 1950, and the fourth should be discussed together.

Mr. MacLAREN: Owing to the noise in the Committee perhaps I did not hear. The hon. and learned Gentleman specifically said that he would not press the
first Amendment. If he is not going to press I want to know for guidance, through you, whether we are precluded from discussing it, or if it is an Amendment that is so badly drawn that it contradicts the other two, and they are not going to press it, are we in order in discussing it? If we discuss it, are we not bound to get out of order in discussing the two Amendments which follow?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not going to press his Amendment. He has not yet withdrawn it.

Lord HUGH CECIL: On that point of Order. Are not hon. Members opposite wilfully obstructing the business of the House? [Interruption.]

Mr. HUDSON: Is it not perfectly in order for any hon. Member of this House to ask those who have made no speech in explanation of an important technical and legal Amendment for reasons, and to press for reasons, when it becomes clear by their attitude that no attempt is to be made to give an explanation to the Committee? Is it not perfectly in order by the Rules of the House for an hon. Member to press for such an explanation, and is not that exactly what I have been doing?

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members have been raising points of Order, and I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee the present position. I do not think there is any necessity to ask for an explanation. It is perfectly clear that the second Amendment on the Paper is the one that has been called, and that the fourth Amendment is being discussed along with it. In the discussion, the hon. Member is entitled to ask for an explanation of the Amendment.

Mr. BENSON: Is it a proper Parliamentary expression to charge hon. Members on this side of the Committee with wilfully obstructing.

HON. MEMBERS: So you are.

Lord H. CECIL: I asked, a perfectly Parliamentary question.

The CHAIRMAN: I have been trying to define the words specified. I always understood that hon. Members were not entitled to charge each other with wilful obstruction.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are we not entitled to have an answer to the question which my right hon. Friend addressed to you, Sir?

The CHAIRMAN: Certain hon. Gentlemen raised points of Order, and I explained the position to the Committee. I said that it was unnecessary to raise any further points of Order in this matter.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: On a point or Order. [Interruption.]

Mr. McGOVERN: I would like to ask for your assurance, Sir Robert, that the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench who has raised this question on a point of Order is a Member of this House, because I have never before seen him here.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hudson.

Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order. I have asked a definite question, because I have been here a year, and I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman before.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not press his point of Order.

Mr. McGOVERN: Well, he must have come out of his dug-out.

Mr. HUDSON: I am sure that the party opposite completely sympathise with me in arguing out the case which I am putting for their consideration.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: On a point of Order. Are not the Opposition working under a very strict Guillotine, with very little opportunity for debating fully the subjects which we wish to debate? It appears to us that there is wilful obstruction for some reason or other, and curiously enough from the Independent Labour party, whom, I hope, the Government thank for coming to their rescue in time to-day. Is this wilful obstruction to be allowed to continue? [Interruption.] Will you see that fair play is given to His Majesty's Opposition, and that we are given adequate time to discuss the subjects which we wish to discuss?

The CHAIRMAN: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, that I cannot be responsible for fixing a time limit to end the discussion of these Amendments. I would ask hon. Members, now that
they have had an explanation as to the business before the Committee, not to raise any more of those points.

Mr. MARLEY: On a point of Order, a different point of Order. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is asking a question, I will listen to him.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MARLEY: On a point of Order. I want to ask you whether, in the point of Order put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, there was not a very serious reflection upon your chairmanship? In point of fact, he said that the Opposition was not being treated fairly. That is an implication upon our Chair-man, and we on this side of the Committee resent it very much.

The CHAIRMAN: I sometimes hear reflections upon my conduct of the Committee from both sides. I do not always take them seriously. In trying to assist the Committee, I have given the information for which I have been asked.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member raising a different point of Order?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: My point of Order is, that if you think that an imputation or a reflection has been made upon you as Chairman, surely it is a reflection upon the people sitting on this side of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that it appeared to them that there was wilful obstruction. Those were the words, I think.

Mr. WISE: In order to make the discussion possible——[Interruption.]

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I would submit that, while the ex-Patronage Secretary, the right hon. Member for Evesham (Sir B. Eyres Monsell) said that it appeared to them that there was wilful obstruction, he particularised to the extent of referring to wilful obstruction on the part of the Independent Labour party in this House. Consequently, I submit that the hon. Member is referring to myself and others,
and I would ask that the statement be withdrawn. I wish to make it plain, in seeking for the withdrawal of the statement, that it may be that I am somewhat to blame. Perhaps I am not as quick in the uptake as some hon. Members, but I am still a little confused, owing to the words of the former Solicitor-General, because I took it that the Government were accepting——

The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise. I am not aware that the Government have accepted anything, neither am I aware that any Amendment has been withdrawn. Therefore, there is no need to discuss that point any further.

Mr. STEPHEN: I was seeking to show that there was nothing in the way of obstruction by myself, and I am asking that the definite charge made by the hon. Member opposite of wilful obstruction on the part of either myself or the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), seeing that we are the Members of the Independent Labour party who have raised points of Order, should be withdrawn in the usual way.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 246.

Division No. 304.]
AYES.
[5.3 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Albery, Irving James
Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Inksip, Sir Thomas


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Iveagh, Countess of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beaumont M. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bracken, B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ferguson, Sir John
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Buchan, John
Fielden, E. B.
Lymington, Viscount


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Butler, R. A.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Campbell, E. T.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Carver, Major W. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Chapman, Sir S
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, A. J.


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hammersley, S. S.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hanbury, C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peake, Capt, Osbert


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Savery, S. S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Train, J.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Purbrick, R.
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney R.


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Remer, John R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Withers, Sir John James


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womersley, W. J.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Salmon. Major I.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Sir F.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Captain Wallace.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lawrence, Susan


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leach, W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lees, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Gill, T. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Angell. Sir Norman
Gillett, George M.
Lindley, Fred W.


Arnott, John
Glassey, A. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gossling, A. G.
Logan, David Gilbert


Ayles, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gray, Milner
Longden, F.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Barr, James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Groves, Thomas E.
McElwee, A.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, V. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettlestton)


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacLaren, Andrew


Blindell, James
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McShane, John James


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Manning, E. L.


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Mansfield, W.


Brooke, W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
March, S.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Haycock, A. W.
Marley, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Hayes, John Henry
Marshall, Fred


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mathers, George


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Matters, L. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Messer, Fred


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Herriotts, J.
Middleton, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Millar. J. D.


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.


Church, Major A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Montague, Frederick


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Morley, Ralph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Compton, Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cove, William G.
Isaacs, George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.


Dallas, George
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Murnin, Hugh


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Day, Harry
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oldfield, J. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Duncan, Charles
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Ede, James Chuter
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Palln, John Henry


Edmunds, J. E.
Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Knight, Holford
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Egan, W. H.
Lang, Gordon
Perry, S. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Freeman, Peter
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith




Pole, Major D. G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.


Potts, John S.
Simmons, C. J.
Walkden, A. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Walker, J.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallace, H. W.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watkins, F. C.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
West, F. R.


Romerll, H. G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, Joseph


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Rowson, Guy
Stamford, Thomas W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sanders, W. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sandham, E.
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sawyer, G. F.
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester. Loughb'gh)


Scott, James
Tillett, Ben
Wise, E. F.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H
Tinker, John Joseph
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Toole, Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tout, W. J.



Shield, George William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shillaker, J. F.
Vaughan, David
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. James Hudson.

Mr. HUDSON: rose——

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: You will get a job now, old boy.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) has passed what, in essence, is a reflection upon the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson). He called out, as the hon. Member was about to speak, a sentence which implied that the hon. Member was speaking for a particular purpose.

Sir F. HALL: I said it.

Mr. McSHANE: He called out: "You will get a job now." I say that that is a reflection on the character of the hon. Member——[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members on both sides must allow me to hear the point of Order which the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) is putting.

Mr. McSHANE: I want to ask you whether that is not a clear imputation upon the character of the hon. Member. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the observation of the hon. and gallant Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "He admits it."] But I think they are words of which we need take no notice.

Mr. LEES: On a point of Order. [Interruption.] May I call your attention to this important fact, that the Noble Lord opposite raised a point of Order with regard to an hon. Member on this side who was supposed to have made a remark. Mr. Speaker did not hear the remark, but the Noble Lord had his way in that respect.

Mr. SANDHAM: And I was asked to leave the House.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are we to understand that if you had heard the remark it would have been considered an insult to suggest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson) that he desired to become a Member of the Government?

Mr. HUDSON: Hon. Members have said a good many things at my expense during this Debate and perhaps I may say with a desire to assist you, Mr. Chairman, that the interruptions have made no impression upon me. I was dealing with a fair issue. I wanted to know, and I still want to know, what is going to happen if it is discovered by the assessors of the tax proposed to be imposed by the Amendment that the person upon whom it is supposed to rest has absolutely no existence. What steps will then be taken regarding the particular unit of land upon which the tax is to be placed? I have observed throughout all these discussions that hon. Members opposite immediately leave the Chamber whenever the merits of the question are discussed, and they are no better informed about the merits of this issue now
than they were when the Debate commenced. As far as I can see the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) is not prepared to face the issue as to what is to be done with regard to land upon which the tax cannot be levied, although Parliament has decided that it shall be levied. Before the Closure was moved I asked this question.
Is it the intention of the Opposition that land in respect of which executors or trustees cannot be found shall be confiscated? What do they intend shall be done with regard to land which, when their carefully worded Amendment comes to be considered, leaves us in the position that unit after unit of land cannot have a tax imposed upon it at all. The Tory party is constantly accusing us of putting forward Amendments of an indefinite character and throughout the discussions on this Bill have said that our intention is that land shall come into the possession of the State without proper compensation being paid. I submit that it is highly probable, on the basis of this Amendment which has not yet been explained to the Committee, that the only thing a taxing authority can do when they cannot find the person upon whom to assess this tax is to take steps to confiscate the land. The Opposition by this Amendment have not only wasted a good deal of time but have presented us with a proposal which will form a basis for further steps to be taken against them in regard to their land policy.

Mr. DENMAN: Are we to get no statement at any stage from the Opposition as to what the Amendment means?

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has no doubt come into the Committee with the other reinforcements of the Government, and he does little honour to the Solicitor-General who about an hour ago made a clear statement upon this Amendment.

Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) addressing the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) desired an explanation of the Amendment, and, as he gave way when the hon. and learned Member for Fareham
rose, I called the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. DENMAN: I rose to continue the Debate in default of any explanation from the other side of the Committee. If the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is going to give the Committee an explanation of the Amendment I will gladly resume my seat and make my observations later. I have listened to the Debate from the beginning and therefore the observations of the hon. and learned Member are entirely beside the point. I will gladly give way to him if he will explain what the Opposition really mean—if he can.

Sir T. INSKIP: The last words of the hon. Member, "if he can," are characteristic of the temper in which hon. Members have discussed this Bill but, fortunately, although the hon. Member has been put into a position of some indignity, it is not necessary for me to meet taunts of that character. If anything was needed to bring discredit upon this wretched Bill it is the proceedings of the last hour, and as you have allowed the hon. Member opposite time after time to repeat the question as to whether or not any explanation is to be given of this Amendment I presume that you will allow me to give one or two explanations. During the Debate, on the Finance Bill hon. Members opposite sat like dumb dogs—[Interruption]—but since it became obvious not only that their arguments were exhausted but that their numbers were not available in the Division Lobby they have ceased to become like dumb dogs and have become like deaf adders. [Interruption.]

Mr. MESSER: Is it understood that the adjective "dumb" does not apply to hon. Members opposite?

Sir T. INSKIP: They have become like deaf adders, and refuse to listen to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.

Mr. LOGAN: Would it be in order if I said that the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is like a Kilkenny cat?

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) would not be out of order but he would be giving a very characteristic specimen of the wit of hon. Members
opposite. It was obvious that hon. Members opposite were not prepared to listen. They did not want an explanation of the Amendment. They wanted to delay time until a sufficient number of persons were present to go into the Lobby. I speak within your knowledge, Mr. Chairman, just as within the knowledge of hon. Members opposite. The Solicitor-General gave an explanation of the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend in which he admitted not merely that we had called attention to a point which was worthy of attention but that the Amendment proposed met the difficulty to some extent, and the Solicitor-General assured the Committee that he was prepared to draft an Amendment upon the lines of that which appeared on the Paper and that an alteration of the last words of the Amendment would adequately meet the difficulty to which attention had been called.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want the hon. and learned Member to misrepresent what I said. I made it quite clear that under your ruling, Mr. Chairman, two Amendments were being discussed. Unfortunately they were in inverted order on the paper to which I was referring to that in which they appear on the Order Paper. I said that we could not possibly accept in any circumstances the Amendment to which the hon. and learned Member is now referring. The second Amendment, I said, was a point which had not been drawn to our attention, but we were perfectly prepared to bring forward words on the Report stage to deal with it. The first Amendment I could not possibly accept.

Sir T. INSKIP: It is just as well to get out of the way any misunderstanding as to the Amendment, owing to the Solicitor-General, as he has frankly said, having the Amendment on his papers in the inverse order to that in which they appear on the Amendment Paper. The hon. and learned Gentleman has described as the first Amendment that which in fact is on the Amendment Paper as the second Amendment. I understand that it is the second Amendment on the Amendment Paper which the Solicitor-General says is unworkable. That is not the Amendment which has in fact been moved, although with the permission of the Chair it is one of two
Amendments that have been discussed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) said an hour and a quarter ago that he would not press the Amendment to which the Solicitor-General referred. That is the Amendment which the Solicitor-General says was not a practicable one. But the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme does propose to press the Amendment which appears first on the Paper; that is the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has called the Second Amendment and which I understand he admits has some substance in it. That is the Amendment which we thought was worthy of being treated by the Committee as one upon which a Division should be taken.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) will, I am sure, agree that he said, in view of my statement, that he would not dream of pressing that Amendment. That is the first Amendment. Therefore the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is not right in saying that the opposition propose to press the first Amendment. It is the second one.

Sir T. INSKIP: Whether my hon. and learned Friend was going to press one of the Amendments or not, I understand now that the Solicitor-General and my hon. and learned Friend are in agreement. [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that I am trying to elucidate a misunderstanding which arose owing to the fact that the Amendments were in different order on two separate papers. Having disposed of that matter, I can say that the perfectly disgraceful character of the obstruction on this Amendment has made it simply impossible for any hon. Member on this side to get up and explain the Amendment on the Order Paper. The proceedings of which hon. Members opposite have been guilty upon this Amendment have shown not merely the unwillingness but the complete incapacity of hon. Members opposite to discuss the Bill.

Mr. COCKS: The hon. and learned Member has charged a body of persons here with obstruction. Is that in order?

The CHAIRMAN: The word "obstruction" as applied to any hon. Member is
out of order, but I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman used it in a general sense.

Mr. DENMAN: When I rose I asked hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they proposed to press the fourth Amendment which appears on page 1950. I ask again, is that now their intention? It is that Amendment in respect of which I made the remark that the Opposition might give an explanation if they could. They have singularly failed. I still ask them to provide an explanation of what that Amendment really means—if they can.

Mr. KELLY: I was hopeful, when listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), an ex-Attorney-General, that we should have some explanation of what was meant by the Amendment. We have not had one word of explanation. We have heard a great deal about conduct being disgraceful, and a great deal about reinforcements. I am inclined to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself must have been amongst some reinforcements that came up, for the Amendment is certainly not understood by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham. He believed that we were discussing the first Amendment. Are we to be told whether it is the Opposition's intention or desire—their intention does not count for very much—that anyone who happens to be a trustee is liable to have an assessment made upon him, or is it their desire that such an individual should be exempted from any possibility of an assessment? Unless we are to have an explanation I can only assume that the language used with regard to the conduct of the proceedings is language that can well be applied to those who are responsible for these Amendments. Judging by the absence of explanations, judging by the incapability of the Opposition to explain their Amendments, it is disgraceful of them to put such Amendments on the Paper.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: In view of the great amount of time already wasted, we do not propose to divide on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Then it can be negatived.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendments to be taken are the last one on page 1950—in page 15, line 3, to leave out from "shall" to "be," in line 7—and the first three on page 1951—in page 15, line 7, to leave out the word "so" after the word "payable "to insert the words" to the Commissioners "; and in line 8, to leave out the words "one month" and to insert instead thereof the words "six months."

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, in page 15, line 3, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "be" in line 7.
The Clause reads as follows:
(4) The tax assessed shall, if assessed on or before the first day of June next after the end of the year of charge, be payable to the Commissioners on the first day of July next following and, if assessed on some date later than the said first day of June, be so payable on the expiration of one month from the date of the assessment.
The Clause, if my Amendments are accepted, will read:
The tax assessed shall be payable to the Commissioners on the expiration of six months from the date of the assessment.
I have been wondering why the Government had their Measure drafted as it is, for it is obvious, as the Bill stands, that if a man has an assessment made upon him on 1st January in any year he has six months in which to pay his tax, but that if on the other hand he has the assessment made upon him on 1st June, he gets only one month in which to collect the money and pay the tax. I cannot understand why, if a man has the assessment made upon him early in the year he should have a normal period in which to pay, but if he is assessed later he should be expected to find the money in a much shorter time. Six months' grace is a proper time to allow for the payment of the tax. A large number of trustees will be liable to pay this tax on land holdings that they may have in trust, and it might be very difficult for them to raise the necessary money within the short period of one month, which is all that will be allowed if they are so unfortunate as to have an assessment made upon them in the latter part of the year. I shall be interested to hear from the Solicitor-General why this differentiation was made between the earlier assessment and the later. Obviously it cannot have been arranged in order to get the money
in before the end of the financial year in April. If an assessment were made on 1st March a man still need not pay until 1st July, but if the assessment is made in the latter part of the year he has to get the money in within one month. The Amendment would make uniform for all taxpayers the amount of time allowed for payment when an assessment is made upon them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment raises a very interesting point as regards the possibility of having a fixed date for the collection of the tax. Although under the words of Sub-section (4) there is a latitude as regards dates after June, that is only intended to cover dates in cases where assessments have been delayed or there has been an appeal on valuation, or some such matter as that. It is intended that in the majority of cases the assessment will be in the hands of the payer on or before 1st June, after the end of the year of charge. Then it was thought wise to give a fixed date for payment. Most hon. Members will agree that if you have some liability falling upon you it is a comfort to know the date when it will fall, rather than to learn that it may fall within six months if some authority does something. The main liability under the Bill will fall on 1st July each year, and that was thought to be a convenient date in view of other possible commitments of persons paying this tax, and it was thought better to fix the payment specifically on 1st July after at least a month's notice from 1st June.
If longer notice were given it would be so much the better perhaps, but allowance with regard to subsequent assessments is really only to meet cases where a normal course cannot be carried out for some reason or other. I am sure the Committee will agree that on the whole it is more satisfactory to have a fixed rate, so that everyone may know at the time of the valuation and assessment and so on, that on that date they will have to find the money to pay this tax, rather than to require payment at some quite indefinite date dependent upon when they happen to get the assessments sent to them. It is for those reasons that I suggest to the Committee that the proposal of the Bill is more convenient, and
that it suits the convenience of the taxpayer.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the convenience of the method adopted in the Bill. He, of course, looks at the matter from the point of view of revenue and from the point of view of a Government which seeks to penalise those who have been so unfortunate or so misguided—though often acting under the compulsion of some statutory provision—as to invest money in land. No doubt this proposal is convenient to the Revenue. No doubt it is convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that everybody shall be ordered to pay up within 28 days of receiving notice of assessment, but the Amendment has been moved because we wish to consider, not merely the convenience of the authorities, but the convenience of the taxpayer. This tax is not like the Income Tax, a tax upon receipts. It is a tax upon the capital value of a property which in all probability in many cases will not be yielding any revenue at all. The Amendment is moved in order that many people who will be liable to pay this tax—upon a form of investment which is already taxed up to the hilt under the Income Tax Acts—shall have the opportunity to furnish those resources from which the tax will have to be paid to the tax collector.
I should like to hear an opinion expressed through some great organ or in public meetings, as to whether the general public think that they are being adequately protected by the Solicitor-General and by this Government who claim to represent their interests, when they are told that they must be ready with the cash within 28 short days of the assessment, or be subject to the penalties which the hon. and learned Gentleman's Government, if still in power, will be prepared to enforce. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to think that 28 days is enough, but is that the opinion of the public? [Interruption.] I should like to hear hon. Members opposite go to the electors and tell them that the Government have resisted a proposal to give everybody six months time within which to pay the sum in which they will be assessed under this proposal. I seem to have heard an hon. Member below the Gangway speaking as if this were a tax
upon landlords. Hon. Members opposite cannot get it out of their minds that this is a tax upon landlords. It may be, but it is a tax upon people whether they are landlords or not. It is a tax upon the people who are their own landlords, who have committed the unpardonable crime of thinking that they could make provision for their own old age or for their family's comfort, by buying a piece of land and have bought it in a district where, unfortunately, it has a value over and above cultivation value. It is a tax upon people who have dared to put their investments or their savings into a form of property such as ground vents or feu duties.

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment deals only with the date of payment of the tax and not with the tax which is being imposed.

Sir T. INSKIP: Surely I am entitled to argue that in the case of a tax which has so many characteristics of hardship, one month is too short a period to allow the taxpayer to collect the necessary resources for the payment of the tax.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be pointing out all the different classes of people who are being taxed and to be dealing in fact with the imposition of the tax. I have merely pointed out that the Amendment deals only with the question of time in regard to the payment of the tax.

Sir T. INSKIP: But am I not in order in pointing out that it will not be millionaires only who will have to put up the money within the 28 days, but also humble proprietors of villas in urban communities?

The CHAIRMAN: It depends on how the hon. and learned Gentleman points out those facts. It appeared to me that he was really discussing the tax itself and not the date.

Sir T. INSKIP: You, Sir Robert, will no doubt stop me when you think that I am exceeding the relevance which has been the characteristic of the proceedings this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member might as well refer to the relevance of something which took place in days gone past, as to something which took place on a previous Amendment.
We are now dealing with a new Amendment.

Sir T. INSKIP: I venture to think, Sir Robert, that I have been so far submitting myself to your Ruling, and asking for your guidance, and I understand that according to your Ruling I am perfectly in order in pointing out that this is a burdensome tax and that six months is not too long a period to enable the taxpayer to collect the money with which to pay it. I understand that I am in order in pointing out that this is not a tax which is going to fall upon landlords alone, but that it is going to fall upon people who own land for the purposes of their own residences and on humble folk whose resources are not extensive. The last thing that I want to do is to take up time in discussing the matter beyond what is necessary to open the eyes of the public to the penalties which this Government are imposing upon them. We regard it as important that humble taxpayers should have proper time within which to provide the money to meet the tax collector when he knocks at the door, and that is why we propose to press this Amendment to a Division.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: The Solicitor-General said it was advantageous that there should be a fixed date of payment, but as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) has pointed out, the advantage is primarily to the Exchequer and not to the taxpayer. As the Clause is drafted, provision is made for a fixed date up to 1st Juno, that is to say, for the first five months of the year. But thereafter it becomes a moveable feast, like Easter, and the period is fixed as one month after the assessment. Therefore in the Clause as drafted, the Solicitor-General does not achieve his point of having the advantage of a fixed date. If that be the case, the principle is not a fixed principle. Already, in the Clause, the hardship involved is realised to the extent of allowing 28 days. All of us who come within the clutches of the Exchequer know the great difficulty which we have in providing the ordinary and usual taxation, but this tax is a capital tax, unlike the Income Tax, and the money has to be found from a source which does not normally exist.
In the case of a tax on income, a man has something from which to pay the tax,
but in this case the State assesses a man's land on a capital basis as being worth so much, and orders him to pay taxation upon that within 28 days. The money has to be found from capital resources. His income has already been heavily drawn upon to meet other taxes and rates; it is now proposed to pile Pelion upon Ossa by adding the fresh burden of a capital tax, and he is only to be allowed 28 days in which to find the money. He is not even to have the advantage in all cases of the fixed date because that will not apply to the latter part of the year. Surely in this matter the Solicitor-General can yield a point in favour of the unfortunate taxpayer. Six months is not too long to allow, when capital has to be realised, and when, probably, something has to be sold at a sacrifice in order to meet this demand. If the Solicitor-General cannot concede six months, he ought to consider some reasonable compromise such as four months.

Mr. REID: May I point out to the Solicitor-General that the largest individual payers of this tax are likely to be firms engaged in business operations, the owners of large shops in cities and the owners of businesses which require considerable areas of land. Is it reasonable or fair, at a time like the present, when the reports in the newspapers show that many of these firms are not making any money at all, to force them to meet this new demand for very considerable sums within 28 days? I think the six months asked for in the Amendment is only reasonable.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I wish to support the pressure which is being put upon the Solicitor-General to allow adequate time for this payment. In refusing to consider the Amendment, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman shows a lack of appreciation of the difficulty which people have in meeting normal taxation. The Solicitor-General when presenting the taxation proposals of the Government to the Committee should endeavour to look at the matter from all angles. We know what occurs in connection with the assessment for normal Income Tax which is met in two payments. We know that many people have the utmost difficulty in meeting it. I do not think that I exaggerate
in saying that 70 per cent. of the taxpayers have great difficulties in paying the normal Income Tax. But this is not a tax levied upon anything which is income-bearing; it is a tax on capital. The Government have already had their tax upon the income. They want to levy a tax upon the capital and they propose to give only one month within which to meet that demand. There ought to be an adequate extension of time in this case, not only because this is a capital tax as opposed to a tax upon income, but also because we know that to-day the great bulk of the taxpayers are having great difficulty in meeting their ordinary taxation, as and when it becomes payable. If for that reason alone the Amendment or something in the nature of 6.0 p.m. the Amendment, should be acceptable to the Government. The learned Solicitor-General is, I am sure, very reasonable and is quite prepared to listen to those who have some experience of industrial difficulties and of the difficulties of people in finding liquid cash to-day. I am sure he will accept the opinion of those who are engaged in industry as to what their difficulties are. He may not know from personal experience, but some of us know what difficulties there are in these days, when the dividends on our investments are not forthcoming, when in most cases they are being passed over, and how that fact affects the resources which we have to meet taxation. If we have not the income, we cannot meet our obligations, whether for the Government or anybody else, and it would be a gracious act on the part of the Solicitor-General if he would accept the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I hope the Government will stick to the proposal in the Bill. It seems to me that the proposals that the other side are making would themselves introduce a new inequality, as burdensome as any that they have suggested are created by the Bill. If I understand the Amendment rightly—and it is rather difficult to do so, because of the form in which it stands—the proposal is that if a landowner has his assessment made in January, he will be called upon to pay his tax at any time within the succeeding six months.

Major LLEWELLIN: That is the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. WINTERTON: If the landowner is in the position of having his assessment made on 15th June, his tax under the Bill becomes payable within a month, and the Amendment proposes to give this individual, already favoured by the fact that hi" assessment comes late, a further six months' grace before the actual payment of the tax becomes due. There would thereby be constituted an inequality between the people whose land is first assessed and those whose land is afterwards assessed, by the great space of time between the two periods when the tax is payable. I can see no reason for creating that inequality as between one taxpayer and another.
There is another point which has been stressed from the benches opposite. All their speeches have been devoted to the suggestion that only 28 days are to be allowed for the payment of this tax, but as a matter of fact that is not so. The period of 28 days applies only to the few assessments which are made after 1st June, and it is quite misleading to make these speeches, designed to create in the mind of the taxpayer the idea that only one month's grace is to be allowed, when in the great majority of cases the Bill provides for six months' grace before payment falls due. The late Attorney-General suggested that if, when this Bill becomes law, the present Government are in power, they will proceed to enforce it with all the penalties set forth in the other Clauses, but supposing at a later stage some other Government are in power, formed by hon. Members opposite, are we to take from that speech the suggestion that they will not administer the law of the land as it is passed by this House?

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I suggest, without any desire to traverse your Ruling, Sir Robert, that there was implied a suggestion that the present Government would put this into action, and I am asking if it is suggested by inference that if another Government were on these benches, this Measure would not be put into operation.

The CHAIRMAN: To use a stereotyped phrase, the hon. Member must wait and see.

Mr. WINTERTON: I was trying to look into the future and to see what was in the minds of hon. Members opposite. Everybody in this House and outside it knows that whatever may be the date on which we are called to pay either our taxes or our rates, it is always an unpopular date. It is always the wrong time when the tax collector calls, or when the rate demand paper is received. You can always raise a cry about a wicked Government calling upon you to pay your dues on a given date. It is one of the cheapest electioneering devices that has ever been suggested in this House. We have had all this sound and fury and the pathetic appeal by an hon. Member opposite who sits for a Yorkshire constituency, about times being bad and about the difficulties of the poor landowners scraping together sufficient pence in order to pay 1s. 8d. in the £ on the capital value of their land; but I read in the Conservative Press, and I am pleased to do so, quite frequent allusions to the fact that there is now a turn in the tide of affairs, that we are commencing a great period of prosperity, and that in two years everything will be booming.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: Will the hon. Member refer to Slaithwaite, in the Division of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: I was going to say that there is nothing in that argument, because the tax does not fall due until two years hence, when the circumstances may be very different from what they are now, and when we hope everybody will be able to pay the tax with a good grace and to look pleasant as they pay it. The principle is not new. There is a fixed date on which rates and Income Tax are demanded, and it would be very undesirable to begin to vary that practice in the case of the new land taxes. I therefore trust that the Government will resist the blandishments of the Opposition.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 222.

Division No. 305.]
AYES.
[6.9 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mort, D. L.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Harris, Percy A.
Muff, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Angell, Sir Norman
Hayes, John Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Arnott, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Barr, James
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Batey, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie.
Palln, John Henry


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Perry, S. F.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Blindell, James
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pole, Major D. G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Price, M. P.


Brookway, A. Fenner
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pybus, Percy John


Bromfield, William
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bromley. J.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brooke. W.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Raynes, W. R.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cameron, A. G.
Kinley. J.
Ritson, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Knight, Holford
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Charleton, H. C.
Lang, Gordon
Romerll, H. G.


Chater, Daniel
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Church, Major A. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rothschild, J. de


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sanders, W. S.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lees, J.
Sandham, E.


Daggar, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Lindley, Fred W.
Scott, James


Dalton, Hugh
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Day, Harry
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Ede, James Chuter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Edmunds, J. E.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Egan, W. H.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Elmley, Viscount
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Freeman, Peter
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McShane, John James
Sorensen, R.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, Thomas W.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stephen, Campbell


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Manning, E. L.
Strauss, G. R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mansfield, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibson H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gill, T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gillett, George M.
Marley, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Glassey, A. E.
Marshall, Fred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Tillett, Ben


Gray, Milner
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Middleton, G.
Toole, Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D.
Tout, W. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mills, J. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major J.
Vaughan, David


Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walkden, A. G.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morley, Ralph
Walker, J.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wallace, H. W.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Walters, Rt. Hon- Sir J. Tudor




Watkins, F. C.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wise, E. F.


Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Young, R. S, (Islington, North)


Welsh, James (Palsley)
Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)



West, F. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Connor, T. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
O'Neill, Sir H.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt, Osbert


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George


Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beaumont. M. W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Purbrick, R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Boyce, Leslie
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hartington, Marquess of
Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Savery, S. S.


Butler, R. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith-Carington, Nevilla W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, D. G. (Willesdon, East)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chapman. Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Christie, J. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Thompson, Luke


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Com- O. (Handsw'th)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cranborne, Viscount
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lymington, Viscount
Wells, Sydney R.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macquisten, F. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Withers, Sir John James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Marjoribanks, Edward
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Meller, R. J.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.



Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sir Frederick Thornes And Sir Victor Warrender.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, to leave out the words "six years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
Under the Government's proposals, assessments may be made at any time not later than six years after the end of the year of charge to which it relates. I want the Committee to consider for a moment cases that may arise very easily under this Clause. It is clear from our discussions that the actual valuation is a matter of very considerable difficulty. A man may be satisfied in his own mind that his land may be exempt from the operations of this Bill; for some reason or other the land is not valued, and this confirms the opinion of the owner that it is bona fide exempt. The owner may die or his circumstances may change in six years. After some years, the owner enters into a contract for sale. The prospective purchaser not unnaturally asks the vendor if the land is liable for the Land Tax. The vendor replies that he has not been assessed for it and that to the best of his knowledge and belief there is no liability for Land Tax on it. The purchaser takes the land on the understanding that the land in its present state is exempt.
Perhaps four years after that transaction has taken place, the Inland Revenue comes down and says, "We are going to assess it." I do not see what right the Government have to put their assessments back as far as six years. It must inevitably interfere with thousands of bona fide transactions which would otherwise be carried out in good faith by both parties, both the vendor and the purchaser believing that land was free from tax when a conveyance took place, and would remain free unless there were a material alteration due either to the conditions of the surrounding land or to some extraneous cause like a new road or something of which the purchaser would know if it took place. Under this Clause, however, although the land has not been valued for taxation in either the first quinquennium or the second quinquennium, the Government can come down on a man and say he is liable not merely to pay the tax, but to pay all the arrears of the tax for those six years when he believed he was free of the tax.
In asking for six years' assessment, the Government are asking for something
which is not justified, and for which there is no reason, because if their valuations are properly carried out, they ought to know each five years whether land comes within the scope of this Bill or whether it is outside, and the only reason I can see for the Government asking for these very drastic powers is that they are perfectly well aware that they cannot carry out their valuations in the time at their disposal, and that when the tax first comes into operation in 1934, only a small proportion of the valuation will be completed. They are uncertain whether the valuation will be completed within five years. In the second quinquennium a great deal of land will be unvalued, and the only possible hope of recovering what the Chancellor hopes to get is to make this tax retrospective in some cases for six years, and so tax the unfortunate landowners or purchasers for what is really a sin of omission on the part of the Government.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member, but I think that the facts relating to this part of the Bill are tolerably clear. This matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1919, and hon. Members will recall that up to 1923 the period following the year of assessment in which an additional assessment might be made for Income Tax was limited to three years. The Committee will allow me to say, in passing, that I was a member of this Commission, so I am familiar with this part of the controversy. In 1923, very largely on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, this period was extended to six years. I should like to read a few sentences from the report of that Royal Commission which, I think, go very near to the essence of this case. The Royal Commission said:
Under-assessment is generally the result of some error or omission on the part of the taxpayer, and the discovery of this omission by the revenue authorities, is often a matter of time and chance.
That will not be seriously disputed.
Whereas the information may be presumed to be in the hands of the taxpayer all the while, it may happen that the error is not discovered until the three years time limit is passed, and then it is too late for the Commissioners to put the matter right.
All that the proposal in this part of the Bill does is to bring the time limit for the purposes of assessment and recovery into line with the ordinary Income Tax practice in this country. I can well imagine that hon. Members may say that after the lapse of six years there would be a difficulty in knowing what the valuation was six years before. They might also suggest that it was rather hard on a taxpayer as regards land value under this Bill to be called upon to make a payment after the lapse of that time. I do not think that these contentions can be maintained, because, after all, the real point is liability to the tax. The information is, generally speaking, in the hands of the taxpayer, but only comes to the revenue authorities by chance or late in the day, and it would be unfair to relieve taxpayers who have been in that position from this burden to which all other taxpayers have been exposed.
I am more impressed with the point that the hon. and gallant Member took as to the position of land which had been subject to a sale or transfer during that period, and it was discovered later that the land was subject under the six years period to a tax. Of course, one would assume that before a sale of that kind was completed, there would be very full inquiry by the purchaser as to possible liability to Land Tax, and I should say off-hand, without committing myself, that it should be possible to get a definite statement to that effect from either the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or some other source. This point, I admit, is worth consideration. If I may say so without lack of respect to the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put, I think that it is the only part of his case which will call for a little further investigation before the Report stage. As regards the rest, I see no reason for departing from the terms of the Clause. While I make no promise on behalf of the Government, I will certainly look into the point as to what would happen where there had been a transfer or sale of property during that period.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: What the President of the Board of Trade has just said goes to the heart of the matter. There are two quite distinct points here. One is the mere question of the length of time to which an assessment can be made retrospective. Of course, I assume the
answer to that would be that this was bringing the Bill into line with ordinary Income Tax practice. The other point is bound up with it, and is of vital importance. It is whether you can carry retrospectively over six years, or even for one year, a charge in respect of the Land Tax as against the purchaser for value without notice. I hope that the Solicitor-General will deal with this point. The President of the Board of Trade has said that he will give the matter his careful consideration. May I point out that there is on the next page of the Order Paper an Amendment which is designed to deal with this very point?
The matter arises in this way. In 1925 Parliament passed a series of Acts relating to the law of property. One of the cardinal features of those Acts was that when a purchaser got a title in accordance with the provisions of the Act from the Land Registry, he got something which was absolutely clear and against which no charge which had not been notified on the register could prevail. So strongly was this laid down by Parliament that it was made to apply even to the charge for Estate Duties—to a charge registered as a class "D" charge—and if a purchaser bought in the absence of any such registration and notice thereof—because that is the only way in which the purchaser can satisfy himself of the existence of the charge—even the Estate Duties did not come in. I am not putting it in technical language, but giving the substance with reasonable accuracy. Unless provision is made to equate the charge for these duties with the charge for Estate Duties, the result might quite conceivably be—in fact, will inevitably be—that a purchaser for value in this year of grace, with no notice of any charge at all, with no obligation on the part of the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue to give any indication of any possibility of a charge, and with no knowledge on the part of the seller of the property that any charge is intended, may find himself five or six years hence the subject of a charge which cuts right across the value he paid for his property. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether he is prepared to accept the following Amendment—In page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
(8) A charge for the tax may he registered under the Land Charges Act, 1925, as
a land charge of class D, as if it were a charge for death duties, or, in the case of land, the title to which is registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, may be protected by registering, pursuant to Subsection (2) of Section fifty-nine of that Act, a notice, caution, or other prescribed entry, and where a charge in respect of the tax is not so registered or protected before the end of the year of charge, a purchaser or other person who acquires an interest in or charge on the legal estate for money or money's worth after the end of the year of charge, shall take free from the charge. Provided that, in the case of land the title to which is registered as aforesaid, such interest or charge be acquired by registered disposition, as defined by the Land Registration Act, 1925, and Section seventy-three of that Act shall not apply to a charge for the tax.
If the Government do not accept it, they will not have begun to deal with the difficulty which will confront purchasers for value. This proposal of the Bill cuts right across the principle, which it was thought had been established for all time, of making the State register the test of the safety of the investigations of title.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not wish to pursue the point which my hon. and learned Friend has put with such clarity, but I would like to ask what is the justification for the Government, in effect, requiring as long a time as six years? The argument put forward by the President of the Board of Trade, and accepted by my hon. and learned Friend, is that it is to secure uniformity with the Income Tax system, but surely this is not on the same footing. It may very well be that the remarks which the President of the Board of Trade read out are strictly applicable to anybody whose own information is the basis of the tax put upon him, but that would not be the case here at all. The valuation will be made by people who have knowledge of the neighbouring hereditaments, and it is upon the basis of the neighbouring hereditaments that the valuation will be arrived at. It is more the value of the hereditaments in the neighbourhood of the unit than the unit itself which will determine the valuation upon which the tax is to be levied. That information is essentially in the possession of the valuers and the Government Department carrying out the valuation, but it is not in the possession of the person who is the owner of the unit.
There is an entire difference in the considerations which prevail in the case of
Income Tax assessments, where the main information is supplied by the individual, and an assessment which takes place by a Department upon information which is in the possession of the Department and not in the possession of the individual. It is not relevant to argue that we are seeking to bring the basis of the method into relation with Income Tax methods. Further, what earthly hope is there of a valuer in the case of a rapidly developing area saying what the value was six years previously? Take the case of a small township which develops upon an arterial road. It was agricultural land six years ago, and what person in the world can say, except by the roughest possible guess, what the value was then? For those two reasons I submit that the period of six years is far too long, and the Government ought not to be misled by the false analogy of the Income Tax procedure.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) has put perfectly clearly most of what I wanted to say. The proposed tax is a totally different tax from the Income Tax. The owner of a small piece of land may assume that he is not going to be liable to tax. He may even have taken expert advice on the subject, and have been told that he is not liable to tax, and yet some years afterwards it may turn out that, according to the Government valuers, the property is liable to tax. In that case I refer only to an instance of where the tax would be very low, where it was a question of whether the property was or was not of the value of £120; but take the case of a very valuable freehold property. There will be many cases where the amount of the tax will be subject to wide differences of opinion among experts. Everybody concerned may anticipate that the tax on this particular property will amount say to only £50 a year, but it may turn out that the Government are able to settle on a figure which makes the tax at least double. That shows the great difference there is between these cases and Income Tax cases, and surely 12 months ought to be a sufficient time in which the Government might make up their minds whether they are going to rule that a particular property is subject to the tax and, if so, how much it is to be. Six years ought
not to be established as the period over which the Government can go back, at least until the tax has been in operation for a number of years, and has become a settled tax.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have one question to ask the Solicitor-General, because I am in some doubt as to the true meaning of the provision. Let me say, first, to the President of the Board of Trade that I understand he does not contest the proposition that in case of a sale where there is a bona fide holder for value some further consideration will have to be given to this question. On that, head I only want to reinforce what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) with regard to the Amendment which appears later on the Paper. Does this provision mean that the Commissioners may reopen the question by proceeding to value something which is not before them after the lapse of five years? If it has not been valued, that fact is due to the valuers having exercised their discretion. I have always taken a rather strong view about this exercise of discretion. We have not yet had an opportunity of raising the point, though I hpoe we shall have, of discussing whether this discretion should be given to the valuers, and I rather think I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) in making some objection to that proposal. Is it not rather ridiculous, when valuers, exercising their discretion, have refused to value a particular bit of ground because they regarded it as exempt, to say that after five years the Commissioners are to be at liberty to revise that decision and to come down and value the land? That looks to be a case of having it both ways, and is the reverse of the analogy of the Income Tax Act quoted by the President of the Board of Trade. In this case it is manifest that there is no information in the possession of the subject which he is concealing from the Commissioners. The valuers have first decided not to value and then the Commissioners have reversed that decision.
My second comment is that, if that is the intention of the Government, I am not sure whether, in fact, they will be able to do it. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 13 I see that, for the purpose of
assessment, the land value is to be taken as the value as shown by the entries in respect of that unit in force on 1st January in the year of charge. If my reading of that Sub-section is right, the Government can only value such units as are in the register on 1st January in the year of charge. If that is so, I do not see how the Solicitor-General is going to achieve his intention of reopening the question of the valuation and valuing something which has not been previously valued after the expiry of five years. Whether I am right in my point that the Commissioners may not be able to do that, I am perfectly clear in my own mind that to allow them to do it would be grossly wrong.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I quite agree that this Amendment raises a difficult point, and some of the arguments put forward have been very forcibly expressed. I will take the last point, put by the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson). It is not suggested that there could be any sort of general revaluation under this Clause. Of course, there would be nothing of the sort, but there might be cases where the assessment was very close to a valuation, in the same year as the beginning of the quinquennium, but that you might value when you had passed the quinquennium. That would be a very unlikely case to occur. We could not go back afterwards and say, "This which has been left out can come in" or "That which has been left in can come out." Certainly in the intermediate period we might put in some valuation.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand that unless a unit appears in the valuation register, neither in that year nor in any subsequent year can the owner be assessed.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not until the valuation is in the register. It may be that through some misunderstanding a unit which has a valuation in the register has not been assessed. It might be that someone went to a commissioner in regard to that particular piece of land and said, "This comes under the exemption." It might be found that it was not the property of the particular company assessed, and it might be a genuine mistake. This provision would enable that assessment to be
dealt with. As far as I know, the provision in the Sub-section will not have any wider application. There might be a case where the wrong man has been assessed, and the question might arise whether he ought to have been assessed, and judgment might have been given in that case. In the case of the Income Tax, it often appears that the man has been wrongly assessed, and you have a reassessment. There might be cases in which a dispute has arisen and the commissioners are found to be wrong. It is to meet that type of case that this Clause has been drafted. In view of what has been said, I promise to look into this matter very carefully before the Report stage, and I think that will be a more convenient way of dealing with the point.
As regards the question of the charge, we do not see the matter quite in the same way as the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman). I admit that in the case raised by the hon. and learned Member, the charge should be registered, but it is only a comparatively small amount of land which would be subjected to that charge. It is uncommon in the case of any piece of land there should be any such charge upon it, but it is essential that it should be registered. The other proposals deal with the commonest land in the country, and it would be assumed by everybody that the land in question should be subject to the charge. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rusholme will agree with me when I say that it would really be undesirable if immediately every assessment were made it had to be registered. Short of doing that, it would be impossible for the commissioners to ascertain whether it was likely that a man was going to sell his land or not, and, unless they had that information, they could not proceed. The real question would be, is it more convenient for everybody to assume generally that land is subject to that charge, or would it be more convenient for the commissioners to register the charge? It seems to me that the more convenient course would be to let everybody assume that that will be the case, and that they will be subject to the charge, and it should be the duty of those who want to know to make the inquiry as to whether the charge has been duly paid.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: Provided there is some obligation on the part of the officials to give notice that this is to be charged, then the purchaser would be informed. The trouble is that if you once admit the principle that when you register the charge, or give some equivalent notice on the register, you are permitting the transfer of property in respect of which a charge can be enforced retrospectively, you thereby cut across the whole of the scheme. I do not think that the Solicitor-General answered that point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that that is something which, apart from notice, everyone will assume. Anyone who purchases land will know that all land units are subject to this charge, and it will not be necessary to give any further notice. It would be assumed in respect of every unit that if there has never been a valuation, that point is covered by the case with which I have already dealt. There may have been a mistake in some cases, and the tax may not have been levied on the right person, but the purchaser will still know how that unit stands in the register at the beginning of the quinquennium, which will make it liable to a tax, and all that a person who wants this information will have to do will be to look at the register which is to be kept by the local authority. By looking at that register, they will see whether the land is valued or not. Of course if the owner who is selling the land wilfully withholds information that is already dealt with, and the Committee need not trouble about that point. The register of the local authority is really the document which will disclose to everybody who wants to know whether there is a charge upon the land or not, and they can only find that out by inquiring from the vendors whether the valuation hag been properly made or not.

Earl WINTERTON: I understood the Solicitor-General to say that the amount of Estate Duty which has not been paid in such cases is always a comparatively small amount. I would like to ask if any computation has been made on that point, because I should have thought that the amount would have been a very large one.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the Noble Lord will find upon inquiry that this charge occurs in a very few units.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The President of the Board of Trade evidently thought that Ave have raised a case which requires very careful inquiry. I am very glad to have the admission of the Solicitor-General that it is quite possible that errors may be made in the valuation, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has given us an assurance that this point will be considered on the Report stage of the Bill. I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that he has not touched upon the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). My hon. and gallant Friend said that the real injustice was in the case of the purchaser of a piece of land who was not aware that there was any charge upon it. Let us suppose the wrong man has been assessed, or the assessment cannot be recovered. In that case it is the innocent purchaser who has to suffer, and I think the President of the Board of Trade said that that was a grievance which he would look into. Nothing the Solicitor-General has said deals with the injustice done to the innocent person who buys the land without knowing that there is a charge upon it.
The Solicitor-General dealt with the point of view of the revenue and the State, and he asked why should it not be assumed that everybody would know that, there is a general valuation of all land, and that a man ought not to be such a fool as to enter into a bargain without considering that fact and ought to make inquiries from the revenue officers to get that assurance?
Has the President of the Board of Trade considered the enormous amount of labour involved upon the revenue officials, if inquiry of this kind is to be made every time land changes hands? They would have to go into 7.0 p.m. the valuation. Once again we have the spectacle of the Socialist Government championing the rights of the State and saying that everything should be assumed in favour of the State. When one reads the Bill as a whole, one sees the bureaucratic mind behind this Bill, and the increase of "The New Despotism." Look at Clause 23——

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): We are not now discussing Clause 23.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If you would listen to the conclusion of my argument, you would understand it was completely relevant. In Clause 23 the individual has the duty, if he sells or transfers a piece of land, to supply the revenue with most elaborate details about it. He has to do that for the State, but what does the State do for him? Nothing, says the Solicitor-General. Everything has to be assumed in favour of the State. The individual, whether a duke or a dustman selling the land upon which his dustbin is situated, has nothing done for him. The dustman would probably come within the grossly prejudiced exemption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Take the case of a smallholding, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so enamoured, which is just over the borderline. If a smallholder transfers his piece of property, he has to supply the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the most elaborate details about the sale, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives him nothing in return. The Chancellor of the Exchequer presumes he ought to know every detail of this enormously complicated tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can wait six years and then pounce upon this humble citizen, as well as upon the duke, whereas the land speculator, who has already made his profit, goes free.
There is a great deal in this Amendment which ought to cause the Government to pause before they pursue their purpose of making this period six years. The Solicitor-General, who often expresses a most extreme point of view in most moderate language, was not quite candid with the Committee. I believe he intends to have this period of six years unless reason and argument compel him to make this modification. He bases this long period upon the Income Tax, an entirely false analogy. The whole basis of going back six years in Income Tax is that the man has knowledge of his own income and it can be verified. If he conceals the truth, he can be guilty of fraud. This Clause covers an entirely different case, that of a man who buys property free of charge and has no means of finding out whether there is a charge or not unless he writes to the Revenue. The President of the Board of
Trade refused to put State charges upon an equal footing with other charges by having them registered, and said it was impossible. It is only one more example of the difficulties the Government get into when they try to force upon the country an utterly inequitable system of taxation.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am a little startled by some of the observations from the other side of the Committee, and that is why I intervene. I am going to be technical, and it is high time someone was technical on this matter. The whole question of conveyancing in this country was thought to be in need of radical revision and, as a result of years of labour, the Real Property Act, 1925, introduced a system under which land is assumed to be free of charge. It was thought that that asumption would render land more readily transferable, and that the expenses of a transfer would be cheaper. The result is that we are to-day in the comparatively simple position that land, when it is offered for sale, is assumed to be uncharged land and that you can know, by the simple expedient of getting an official search from the land registry, whether that is right or wrong.
I deprecate entirely the suggestion from the Solicitor-General that we should commence to make an exception to that general rule, which is beginning to work very well, although there has been a disposition in some quarters to be a little obstructive with regard to some of the provisions of the Act of 1925. To start again with exceptions would be an extremely retrograde step. This policy was adopted to facilitate and cheapen the transfer of land and I have no doubt that, if we stick to the system adopted in 1925, we shall eventually achieve that object. It was because I heard the suggestion made that some new assumption was to be put into this Bill, and because I thought that that was really going back on the legislation of 1925, that I have intervened. I hope that, when the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. and learned Friend come to examine this Sub-section, they will bear that in mind.
There is one other point to which I take exception. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that it will be perfectly possible to go to the Revenue
Department when a sale of land is taking place, and inquire whether there is to be an assessment or not. I must point out that it would not have the smallest effect on the legal right of the Revenue if the answer were that there was no charge and that there was not going to be an assessment. Notwithstanding that, the Revenue could the very next day with perfect propriety say that nobody could give away the legal right of the Revenue where a tax was due and that, though they were very sorry for the purchaser, they must nevertheless make the assessment. In those circumstances, the point of hardship raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) would immediately occur. It seems to me to be a grave point, if we are to make this legislation, that we should be at great pains to see that somebody, who is not in the least responsible, is not ultimately made to pay a tax for which he was not in the least liable. I hope that all these matters will be adequately examined when the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite come to implement their promise.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The Solicitor-General in effect said that this Sub-section was needed to deal with slips or oversights, but the Sub-section, as drafted, goes a good deal further and might cover the kind of case which the Amendment is designed to prevent it covering. Incidentally, the statement of the Solicitor-General that it is designed only to cover slips shows how false is the analogy with the six years of the Income Tax, which is in force for the purpose of preventing fraud. Between now and the Report stage, will he consider the possibility of introducing some limiting words to make it clear that this Sub-section is to deal with mistakes and oversights and is not intended to give a general right to review assessments?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will certainly consider very carefully the whole position with regard to this subject.

Question put, "That the words 'six years' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 230.

Division No. 306.]
AYES.
[7.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, Thomas E.
Middleton, G.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, Frederick


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph


Angell, Sir Norman
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Arnott, John
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Aske, Sir Robert
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Murnin, Hugh


Barr, James
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Naylor, T. E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Herriotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk N.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.


Benson, G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Blindell, James
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry


Bowen, J. W.
Isaacs, Georgs
Paling, Wilfrid


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, Sir William
Palmer, E. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brooke, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S


Buchanan, G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Price, M. P.


Burgess, F. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Pybus, Percy John


Buxton. C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cameron, A. G.
Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Knight, Holford
Raynes, W. R.


Chater, Daniel
Lang, Gordon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Church. Major A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Romerll, H. G.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Compton, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rothschild, J. de


Cove, William G.
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Leonard, W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea. West)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Longbottom, A. W.
Scott, James


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longden, F.
Sexton, Sir James


Duncan, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Elmley, Viscount
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Foot, Isaac,
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McShane, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gill, T. H.
Manning, E. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Glassey, A. E.
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


Gossling, A. G,
Marcus, M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Markham, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. R.


Gray, Mllner
Marshall, Fred
Sullivan, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maxton, James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)




Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tillett, Ben
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Tinker, John Joseph
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Toole, Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tout, W. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
West, F. R.
Wise, E. F.


Vaughan, David
Westwood, Joseph
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Vlant. S. P.
White, H. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Walkden, A. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



Walker, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, H. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Atkinson, C.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Balniel, Lord
England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fielden, E. B.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Bird, Ernest Roy
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Meller, R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Clavering, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Boyce, Leslie
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Bracken, B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Muirhead, A. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Buchan, John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peake, Capt, Osbert


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Sir George


Butler, R. A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W-
Power, Sir John Cecil


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hanbury, C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chapman, Sir S.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Coiville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Savery, S. S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskp, Sir Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Skelton, A. N.


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)




Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.


Thompson, Luke
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thomson, Sir F.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Train, J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Turton, Robert Hugh
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
and Captain Euan Wallace.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Withers, Sir John James

Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-two."

This Amendment is self-explanatory, and I understand that the Government are likely to consider it favourably.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 15, line 23, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "be," in line 25.

This Amendment proposes to leave out the words:
notwithstanding any pending objection or appeal which may affect the assessment thereof.

Its effect would be that a taxpayer would be liable for the tax in the event of the assessment being final and complete and effective upon him but that, if he thinks that he has an objection, which is supported by a valid notice of objection, and if the matter is pending before the proper tribunal, the taxpayer shall not be liable to pay the tax. I venture to think that that is consonant with most people's idea of justice, especially in connection with a tax of this character, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I can imagine that he may possibly take an illustration from the Income Tax Acts, which make a taxpayer liable to pay his Income Tax notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal as to the assessment, either as to liability or as to amount; but it by no means follows, in my judgment, that what is good under the Income Tax laws is good for this tax, and it seems to be an elementary act of justice towards the taxpayer that, if as must often happen in the case of a novel tax, he is eventually found not to be liable for the tax assessed upon him, he shall not be called upon to pay.

The Bill does not contain any provision for repayment to the taxpayer of the amount in which he is mulcted, with interest at 4 per cent. or any other appropriate rate. The Bill is a question of "heads I win, tails you lose." I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that, in the case of a tax which is not merely burdensome, but is intricate and likely to be administered with some considerable difficulty, in spite of the way in which the Solicitor-General has treated the matter, it is reasonable that the taxpayer shall not be compelled to pay the money until it has been finally ascertained by the responsible authorities that he is liable for it. I hope that the Solicitor-General will meet this Amendment with the gratitude to us for moving it which it deserves.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that this is an Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept, in spite of the invitation which my hon. and learned Friend has extended to me, in rather less ferocious words than those in which he addressed an earlier invitation to me this afternoon. The reason why we are not able to accept the Amendment is, of course, one that is well known to everyone who is acquainted with the branch of the law to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. It is that a large number of people will do anything to delay the payment of tax. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Let them get on with it," but that is not a very helpful way of administering an Act of Parliament. If the collection of a tax is to be a really practicable matter, it is essential that there should be this provision, and it has been found to be essential in other ways.
The position otherwise would be that every possible device of appeal could be used, by someone who really had no merits at all, in order to stave off the time when the tax would become payable. That is a thing which I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not approve of, and which they
would not desire to see under any Act of Parliament imposing a tax. Cases in which there are genuine appeals, and cases in which orders for repayment are made, are, of course, dealt with in Subsection (8), under which the Commissioners have to make such repayments as are necessitated by Orders of the Court where it has been decided that the assessments have been wrongly made. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that there cannot really be any hardship under this provision, but that, on the other hand, it is an essential feature of the efficient collection of a tax. I regret, therefore, that it will be impossible to allow this alteration to be made. It would only lead to endless litigation, brought about, not because of its merits, but simply because it was delaying tactics to stave off the day when the tax should be paid.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am certain that a large number of us regret the attitude that the Solicitor-General has taken up. It always seems to me that you should have the same provision between the Crown and the subject as you have between the subject and the subject. It is the normal course in the courts of law that, when there is an appeal, there is a stay of execution or judgment. The Solicitor-General has said there will be no hardship at all. He contemplates, therefore, when he denies us this Amendment, that there will be some delay other apparently, than the 42 days that are allowed before the referees can deal with the matter. Surely the Solicitor-General is entirely wrong, because people may have had to pay a very considerable sum in taxation before the appeal is brought and they may be kept waiting for a considerable time thereafter for repayment. If that is not so, the Solicitor-General's arguments for refusing the Amendment are quite invalid, because the appeals will be dealt with in such a short period of time that there will be no additional time to speak of that the Government itself will have to wait.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to Sub-section (8) of this Clause, but there is a Very clear distinction between the liability of the Commissioners and the liability of the subject. The Commissioners have no particular period in which they have to repay this
money at all, but you are making the wretched taxpayer pay up at once. He may have his money lying idle for some considerable time and there is no time in which he can demand it back from the Commissioners even if the appeal is ultimately successful, and no interest is payable on it. The Commissioners, therefore, can delay as long as they like without any penalty whatever. It shows that the whole Bill has been drafted with the Treasury point of view in mind and with no concern whatever for the taxpayer. I had hoped that they might have favourably considered the Amendment and shown that in some cases they have at heart the interest of the ordinary man in the street who will have to pay the tax.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think my right hon. Friend has made out an overwhelming case for the Amendment. The Solicitor-General's only reply is that it would add to the mass of litigation and that it is a course which might be pursued by many subjects who wish to delay the payment of the tax. The delay which they can hope to get by the process of appealing is comparatively short. While it is true that in any given year the amount of tax may be small, what is being settled for the subject will very often be the whole liability to tax for a long period of years. I want to make this suggestion. Would the Solicitor-General be prepared to provide that, where money was paid by the subject and an appeal was entered and succeeded, the Commissioners should refund the money with interest at 5 per cent. to the date of payment? That is an acid test of the bona fides of the Government. In any event, I hope my hon. Friend will persist with the Amendment and will go to a Division.

Major DAVIES: The Solicitor-General has been so fair on the whole in his conduct of this complicated Measure that I am surprised that he has refused to accept the Amendment, because the Clause as it stands seems so essentially unfair. The subject might be compelled, possibly at great inconvenience, to say nothing of loss, to realise his possessions in order to pay the tax. He might have to sell something that he did not want to sell, at an inconvenient time, in order to produce money to which it was subsequently proved the State was not
entitled. The Solicitor-General is framing his net with such small meshes, in order to catch certain evil fish, that he is going to get very large numbers of very good fishes, and that is fundamentally unfair to the taxpayer. I cannot see that the State will lose anything by it. We pride ourselves on the speed with which legal proceedings are carried through to a conclusion as compared with certain other countries, and, while there may be some who would take advantage of a loophole in order to postpone payment of a legal obligation, to leave the Clause unaltered is more unfair to the taxpayer than it would be to the State to make the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend has made a suggestion with regard to the running of interest. There is a very fair provision in operation in America. You are compelled to pay your tax on a certain date, even under protest, but, if on appeal it is found that you have overpaid, the State refunds the overpayment plus interest at 5 per cent. and, if you have underpaid, you pay 5 per cent. on the amount. I see no reason why something of that sort, fair to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer, might not be incorporated, but to provide that the taxpayer has to find the money within 28 days when it is proved that he had no reason to have done so is monstrously unfair. If this mutual provision can be made, there is no loss to anyone and, by accepting the Amendment, or perhaps bringing forward a modified form of words on Report, the Government will be rectifying what is a very unfair position as it now stands.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: Unfortunately, it is impossible to put in a reciprocal Amendment owing to the scope of the Financial Resolution. That would be putting an extra charge over and above a d, tax. Had that been a possibility, there would certainly have been something to be said for the proposal to have interest charged on both sides. It is obvious, however, that, unless the taxpayer is going to pay 5 per cent. interest in every case as from the date the money falls due to the Crown—that anyone who was two months late would have to pay two months' interest at 5 per cent., which I do not think would be welcomed by taxpayers generally—it would be quite unfair to make a one-sided
arrangement by which only the Crown pays. The right hon. Gentleman's reciprocal arrangement is logical, if complicated and difficult to carry out, but a one-sided arrangement would obviously be quite unfair.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This would only apply where the taxpayer has appealed and the courts find that the money ought never to have been paid. It seams to me that there is the strongest claim to interest.

Mr. TURTON: I am rather surprised at the Solicitor-General's attitude. He seems to regard this as a new principle, but it is already in our law. Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, provides that interest should be charged where there has been overpayment and the subject is being put at a disadvantage through the case being delayed. There have been many eases where interest has been allowed at 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. I hope before Report the Solicitor-General will introduce a Clause embodying this principle and allowing the court to grant interest in addition to repayment of the amount overpaid.

Captain CAZALET: It would seem from the observations of the Solicitor-General as to the difficulty of accepting the suggestion that it would be far better for the Government to accept the original Amendment. As I understand it, the procedure embodied in the Clause makes the same conditions apply to the payment of the new tax as apply to-day in regard to Income Tax. Surely the Solicitor-General is wrong in thinking that these two taxes are comparable. This is a completely new tax and the conditions are entirely different. In regard to Income Tax, it is merely a question of establishing a number of facts, but, in trying to estimate these taxes, various speculative considerations will have to be introduced. From the experience of my legal friends, I understand that there is hardly a single valuation that remains the same after it has stood the test of cross-examination. The Solicitor-General says it will delay payment to a very great extent, but individuals, if they can help it, have no desire to go to law. It is an expensive process and the sum involved may be small. After one case has been settled—there will be a large number of identical cases—other people in a similar position will either have to
pay or not have to pay, as the case may be. Therefore, in the end it may, in many cases, save the Government a great deal of trouble. If a, case of a certain nature goes against the Government they will have to make repayments in a large number of cases, and, it may be, in very small amounts, causing a great deal of trouble. No one desires to take cases to law, and as soon as one case is settled a large number of other cases will fall into line, and there will be very little delay in the Government getting whatever is their due in this matter. The Amendment, on the face of it, speaking as one who is not a lawyer, is very reasonable, and it is one which in justice and fairness the Government might very well accept.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) has asked a question which all who remember the legislation of 1910 will be able to answer. Such a provision as that for which hon. Members opposite now ask was contained in that legislation. What was the result? The courts were flooded with cases which stretched out month after month, and in some cases into years, and the result was the tax could not be collected at all. That is the real answer to the Amendment, which, on the face of it, has merits. It seems to square with our notions of justice, and but for the experience of 1910 no doubt the present Government would have listened to it. Those who are familiar with that legislation will remember that it had the effect of staying payment in numerous cases, and that such was the condition of business in the courts, that decisions were delayed month after month, and for very long periods. It is now common knowledge that it was that general treatment of the Statute which finally led to confusion and prolonged delay. For that reason, this is an Amendment which the Government can properly resist.

Captain GUNSTON: I am sure that we are very grateful, now that the learned Solicitor-General has left the House, that the Government have the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give us the
Treasury view rather than the legal view. I am informed that in many cases the appeals mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham were eventually settled in favour of the claimant as against the Crown. That being so, I do not think that his argument was applicable at that point, because those people had not delayed payment of cash, but had justified their case.

Mr. KNIGHT: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, pending a decision over settlement, no payment could be obtained and that it had a serious effect upon the collection of taxation?

Captain GUNSTON: I understand that though no payment could be obtained in the vast majority of the cases, no payment ought ever to be made. It does not strike me that there was much injustice done. This is a rather different case from ordinary Income Tax. In the case of ordinary Income Tax you know what the tax is going to be; it has been going on for a great number of years. This is a new tax and a capital tax, and consequently it makes the position much more difficult. I realise the Treasury argument in regard to ordinary Income Tax. You must get the money in quickly, as you have to balance your Budget. This tax is not going to be collected for some years, when, possibly, it may not be as necessary to get the money in as quickly as is the case to-day. Having regard to all the circumstances, the complexities and difficulties which are going to be placed upon the taxpayer, the Treasury might take a generous view and at any rate try to meet the objection put forward from this side, if not now, at a later stage.

Captain CAZALET: Has not the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), in referring to the cases in 1910, taken into account the very large number of appeals that were made and the number of decisions given against the Crown, and are not these main arguments in support of the Amendment as showing how difficult it is to get a just valuation and a settlement?

Mr. KNIGHT: The experience of that legislation shows that considerable sums of money in the aggregate could not be collected because they depended upon decisions which could not be obtained owing to the glut of cases in the courts.
I surmise—I am not in the confidences of the Government—that in framing the Bill the Government took advantage of that experience and that they desire in the Bill to avoid the difficulties which accrued under the old legislation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 210.

Division No. 307.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
McKinlay, A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gould, F.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McShane, John James


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Angell, Sir Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Manning, E. L.


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mansfield, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
March, S.


Ayles, Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Markham, S. F.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marley, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, Fred


Barr, James
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Matters, L. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Maxton, James


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Messer, Fred


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Harris, Percy A.
Middleton, G.


Benson, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mills, J. E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hayes, John Henry
Milner, Major J.


Blindell, James
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Montague, Frederick


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morley, Ralph


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Broad, Francis Alfred
Herriotts, J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bromley, J.
Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Murnin, Hugh


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Isaacs, George
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Naylor, T. E.


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Oldfield, J. R.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Chater, Daniel
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Palin, John Henry


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Palmer, E. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Perry, S. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Knight, Holford
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Compton, Joseph
Lang, Gordon
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pole, Major D. G.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Potts, John S.


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Price, M. P.


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pybus, Percy John


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. A. Wilson


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Leonard, W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lindley, Fred W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Romerll, H. G.


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
Longbottom, A. W.
Rowson, Guy


Foot, Isaac
Longden, F.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanders, W. S.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sandham, E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Sawyer, G. F.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McEntee, V. L.
Scott, James


Gill, T. H.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sexton, Sir James


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sullivan, J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sutton, J. E.
West, F. R.


Sherwood, G. H.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Westwood, Joseph


Shield, George William
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
White, H. G.


Shillaker, J. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tillett, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sinkinson, George
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sitch, Charles H.
Toole, Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Altercliffe)


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Vaughan, David
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Tom (pontefract)
Walkden, A. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Walker, J.
Wise, E. F.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallace, H. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watkins, F. C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sorensen, R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Stamford, Thomas W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Strauss, G. R.
Wellock, Wilfred
Paling.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Astor, Viscountess
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Atholl, Duchess of
Eden, Captain Anthony
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
England, Colonel A.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lymington, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Beaumont, M. W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ford, Sir P. J.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Bird, Ernest Roy
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Millar, J. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Boyce, Leslie
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bracken, B.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Muirhead, A. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Butler, R. A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Connor, T. J.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Campbell, E. T.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Carver, Major W. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, Capt, Osbert


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, John R,


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Colfox, Major William Philip
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Colville, Major D. J.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cooper, A. Duff
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, D. M.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salmon, Major I.


Cranborne, Viscount
Inksip, Sir Thomas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Savery, S. S.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lamb, Sir J. O
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)




Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Train, J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Withers, Sir John James


Spender-Clay, Colonel H
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Steet-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavst'k)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Thompson, Luke
Wayland, Sir William A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomson, Sir F.
Wells, Sydney R.
Sir George Penny and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, to leave out the word "charge," and to insert instead thereof the word "rent-charge."

This Amendment, together with that one in the next line, to add the words: "Having priority of all other charges and assessments thereon," was drafted by a late Member of this House, Dr. Dundas White, and he alleges that it is essential, if the Crown is to have the advantage of the provisions made in Section 121 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, that great consolidating Statute which was passed by the late Lord Birkenhead, that we must have the word "rentcharge" in the Clause. Section 121 of the Law of Property Act deals with "rent charges" and the special methods of recovery of rent charges, but there is nothing in the Act dealing with the special recovery of charges. That is left to the ordinary law, but rent charges have the advantage of this special treatment. I need not go into the special advantages, which are involved in taking possession and dealing with the property, etc. The main thing is, that the State in collecting the tax on land values should have a prior charge to any mortgage or any other debt secured on that property.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what the situation is as concerns other taxes, but here is a tax which is definitely a charge on the property, and it should be made perfectly clear that it is a State charge on the land and that it has priority over other charges of a private nature. Let me, give tithe as an illustration. Tithe has advantage under the Law of Property Act. I should regard it as being highly improper that the State should have a prior charge over the State when collecting their dues on property. [HON. MBMBEES: "Why?"] Because the State is more important that the Church, and in my opinion should remain so. If the Government have not considered this
Amendment I hope that they will do so before the Report stage, so that we may be in the best position, as laid down by the Law of Property Act, to recover dues in arrear. It may be news to some hon. Members that in Canada, where in many provinces there is a local tax on land values, there have been a large number of cases where the tax has not been collected, because the owner has denied that he was in a position to pay, and the arrears have gone on from year to year. If anything of that sort happened here the State would be in a very bad position if there were prior charges on the property, and the State had only a second charge on the property. Therefore, it is very important that the Bill should be made quite clear, and that if the Government mean to make a charge they mean it to be a rent charge. If not, are they prepared to put the State in the position of not being able to collect the arrears of the tax and being in an inferior position as regards this tax compared with other charges levied on real estate?

Sir T. INSKIP: The right hon. and gallant Member's views about the relations of Church and State are, of course, well known in this Committee. I should like to think that he is singular in those views. I hope so, because if his views on land taxes were given effect, and it is possible that this Government may before very long give effect to them, it will mean that the Church—in which compendious title we include the Christian religion as represented in this country—will be deprived of a portion of its property. Perhaps that observation was irrelevant to the question we have to consider. I only mention it so that we may be reminded of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's judgment is always led astray as soon as it occurs to him that the Church is affected.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is a different thing; this is a privilege.

Sir T. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentle-made made the reservation that he was not a lawyer. I move with trepidation in the region of the law represented by the Law of Property Act, 1925, and I do not wish to speak with any competent opinion upon the matter, but I think that the phrase "rent charge" is wholly unnecessary to give effect to the intention of the Government. It is not, however, my business to make any observation upon that part of the Amendment. The part of the Amendment to which I have a real objection and a right to express an objection on behalf of my hon. Friends on these "benches, is the last sentence, in which he proposes that this tax, imposed in 1931 for the purposes of the year 1934, should take priority of all charges that have been imposed upon the land before the year 1934. That is a most astonishing example of the prejudice with which most hon. Members on the other side view this tax, Why on earth should the Government or the Crown having allowed people to advance money on the security of land, come in and say that their security, which was created under the protection of the law, shall not be worth the paper it is written on? If the law says it shall be a charge on the land, then let the charge have the ordinary priority which the legislation of 1925 may give to it. I hope the Committee will resist the proposed Amendment, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will say that it is even more pernicious than most proposals that come from that side of the Committee.

Mr. ATKINSON: A rentcharge is something payable to the existing owner of the land held on a long lease, or to the late owner of land which has been sold in fee, subject to the payment of a permanent rentcharge. If the rentcharge is not paid the remedy of the owner of the land is to retake possession, because the sole condition upon which the land is held is that a rentcharge is to be paid. If you are going to turn this tax into a rentcharge, does the proposal really mean that on failure to pay, the State is to be in the position of the owner of the land and to say: "You only hold this land so long as you pay the rentcharge. You have not paid the rent, therefore we will turn you out." The thing is preposterous. If you have a charge on the
land that is a totally different thing. That means that you can realise enough of the land to pay yourself what is owing, while the rest remains with the owner of the land. If you turn this into a rentcharge, you are saying that for a comparatively small sum which has not been paid the State can step in and claim the privilege of the owner of the land and enter into possession.
What is to happen to other people who are interested in the land Suppose there is an existing rentcharge, a real rent-charge, and this Amendment becomes law. Are there to he two rentcharges, one owing to the State? If the person who ought to pay is in arrear for 21 days, is the State to swoop down and seize the land and to rob me of my rentcharge, if I happen to hold the other rentcharge? What about Schedule A? That is chargeable upon the land. Rates are chargeable upon the land and mortgages are also a charge on the land. Is it to be suggested that you can turn this tax into a rentcharge so that if it is not paid the State can step in and rob everybody?

Sir D. HERBERT: I wonder if after hearing the speech that has just been delivered the right hon. Member will feel more inclined to press his Amendment than before. Has he considered the implications of the Amendment? His argument, apparently, is that because the State is more important than somebody else, therefore the State should take whatever it chooses. That is what the doctrine amounts to. Let me quote a very common case of real rentcharge on property, a rentcharge on two or three fields left by some benevolent person long ago on condition that the proceeds should provide so many loaves a week for the poor of a particular parish. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the State is more important than the widows? Does he propose to put the widows behind the Land Tax in regard to their loaves every week?

Mr. SIMMONS: The State took the sons of the widows during the War.

Sir D. HERBERT: Although I have heard the hon. Member I confess that I do not understand him. Let me put another point to the right hon. Gentleman, by way of illustration. He is a much more important person than I am, but I do not think that that is a particular reason why if I own certain property,
to which I have a right by law, he should take away my property. Let me put it the other way round. Let me say that I am a more important person than he is, and suppose that included in a real estate there is a rent charge to which he has a right. Am I or someone else more important than he to supersede his legal rights because of the question of superior importance? The fact of the matter is, that the right hon. Gentleman does not follow what is the meaning of a rent charge. For the purpose of a recovery of debt you cannot have anything better than a charge upon the land. That is the proper way of dealing with a direct charge which applies only to a charge payable annually. This tax cannot become a charge upon the land in the sense of a rentcharge payable in futurity or for a fixed term of years; it can only become a charge in each year for the amount of the assessment. For the sake of his own reputation, I hope the right hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment which really, to anyone who is somewhat of a lawyer, appears to foe merely an absurdity.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I listened with great care and attention to what the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) had to say and the Government have given careful thought to this proposal. They cannot accept it. With regard to the word "rentcharge" being substituted for the word "charge," they do not see any reason why they should take that course. The word "charge" adequately expresses the intention of the Government and the word "rent-charge" would be misleading. The word "rentcharge" has a particular meaning applicable in a certain sense, and it would be a misnomer to refer to this charge as a rentcharge. Nor do they see any ground for calling it rent-charge in order to bring it within the terms of Section 121 of the Act. We have provided in this Sub-section what seems to be adequate powers for the collection of the tax and to give priority as far as it is required. In these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: I should like to congratulate the Financial Secretary on the decision which he has reached. I am
glad that there are degrees of legal robbery to which the Government are not prepared to lend their hands. I have never heard a better example of the lengths to which one who by nature is a most amiable individual will go in an insane pursuit of a policy against anyone who has the misfortune to own land in this country, and I hope the electors outside, especially those in one of the divisions of Manchester where a by-election is proceeding at the present moment, will note what the right hon. and gallant Member has said with regard to the respective claims of Church and State. He says that where there is any conflict between these claims the claims of the Church must always go to the wall.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: rose——

Earl WINTERTON: May I call your attention to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member devoted a large part of his speech to that argument?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was about to call the hon. and gallant Member to order when he concluded that part of his argument. It was for that reason that I allowed the Noble Lord to make a passing reference to it in reply, but the matter is out of order.

Earl WINTERTON: I am much obliged to you for your explanation. I only rose in order to inquire why you should call me to order. Of course I accept your ruling.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I allowed the Noble Lord to proceed up to that point, because the right hon. and gallant Member made some reference to it before I could prevent it, but there is a limit and I came to the conclusion that it was being developed far beyond that limit.

Earl WINTERTON: I am much obliged to you and I quite see the situation. I will content myself with the observation that it is a good example of the lengths to which the right hon. and gallant Member, and those who agree with him, will go on this subject, and to congratulate the Government on resisting the Amendment. At the same time, there are some things in the Clause which are almost as bad as the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for his little lecture to the electors of Manchester as to the relative duties of church and State, but I do not see that it was strictly germane to the Amendment. At the same time, it was a useful little incursion into the by-election in Manchester.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is entirely out of order. The right hon. and gallant Member is responsible for introducing irrelevant matter and he must not repeat the offence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was trying to work round to that great poem advising Mr. F. E. Smith, in connection with the famous Disestablishment Act of 1906, to "chuck it"; but I see that I shall have to avoid it. Let me come back to the Amendment and to the remarkable reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a great pity that the Solicitor-General is not present, because evidently this question is entirely strange to the Financial Secretary. I presume that he has had no brief on the matter; at any rate, his reply was absolutely inconclusive. He has told us that the Government prefer the word "charge" to the word "rentcharge." It is not a question of whether the Government prefer the word "charge" to the word "rentcharge," but whether the word "charge" means "rentcharge." The whole question is whether the means of recovery of rentcharge provided in the Law of Property Act, 1925, covers the word "charge." The Financial Secretary avoided that question. He merely said that the Government preferred the word "charge." That is not a reply.
Are the Government satisfied that they have, for the recovery of the Land Tax, the powers necessary. Apparently, the Financial Secretary does not know. I can only suppose that the Government have not prepared any case in respect of Amendments coming from this side of the Committee. They treat them as of no importance. Amendments coming from the other side they treat as of importance, and they prepare a reply. The Solicitor-General leaves, no case is left behind in answer to the Amendment, and the Financial Secretary makes a speech which has no bearing whatever on the Amendment moved.
May I beg the Government between now and Report to consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the Bill gives the Government power to recover under Section 121 of the Act; and what other charges are to rank prior to the Government charge? From the intervention of hon. Members opposite in this Debate, I gather that the Church comes first; tithe has priority over a Government tax. I did not know that before; it is very interesting. Is it true? I doubt it myself, but surely we are entitled to know the order in which these charges come upon the land. I gather that if someone makes a pious charge upon the land for loaves for the poor, for doles, that that is a prior charge to a Government tax. That again surprises me. I thought a Government tax came before these charges. I do not know whether that is so. Unfortunately in the absence of the Law Officers the Committee has no means of discovering whether it is so or not. In any case between now and Report it might be possible for the Government to find out the meaning of this Amendment and whether it is justified or not. I am not a lawyer, but the Amendment was framed by a man who was a very good lawyer, and one who ha" made a study of this question far more than anyone else in this Committee. It is an Amendment which calls for a reasoned reply from the Government.

Sir T. INSKIP: It must not be supposed that we on this side of the Committee associate ourselves in any way with the really monstrous attack which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We think that the Financial Secretary made one of the most admirable speeches with which he has enlightened and adorned our Debates. His accuracy on points of law was matched only by the cogency with which he resisted the specious arguments of the right hon. and gallant, Gentleman; and so far from wishing the return of a Solicitor-General we not only welcome the advent of the Financial Secretary, but we hope that he will stay as long as possible—as long as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propounds his pestilent theories we hope that the Financial Secretary will be here to direct the committee against them.

Amendment negatived.

Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that a mortgagee shall not he liable to pay by way of tax in respect of the part of the mortgaged premises of which he is in possession a greater amount than the amount of the rents and profits received by him, or which but for his wilful default he would have received, after any deduction of Income Tax, or of the tax or any part thereof under this Act, from the whole of the premises comprised in his mortgage.

This Amendment is necessary in consequence of Sub-section (1, b), which provides that in the case of a mortgage the tax shall be chargeable on the mortgagee who has gone into possession of the unit or is in receipt of the rents and the profits. It is chargeable on the mortgagee when the receiver is in receipt of the rents and profits, a provision which appears to me to be very difficult to justify on ordinary grounds of equity and fairness. But it would be intolerable to make the mortgagee in possession liable for the amount of the tax charged upon his security in excess of the rents and profits which he is in fact receiving or which he ought to receive from the land. The mortgagee has gone in in order to protect his security. He has gone in only because his security in the possession of the mortgagor was insufficient to meet the payment of the rents or the interest due upon the sum lent upon security of the land. The tax makes the security less attractive; in fact it makes the security weaker already. But to impose upon this misfortune of the mortgagee the burden of paying the tax to meet which he has no rents or profits, appears to be contrary to all one's ordinary ideas.

The mortgagee in possession might be a second mortgagee in possession. He may be postponed, in point of security, to the first mortgagee, who has been receiving his interest or whose interest the second mortgagee in possession pays. He is protecting the security of the first mortgagee. He is taking advantage of his comparatively weak position as second mortgagee to collect whatever rents and profits for his own purposes there may be left. It is true that if the land is sold the tax is charged upon the land and could be collected from the property, but to make him liable for a tax except in that event, to make him liable week by week or year by year to pay this tax
when he is probably or possibly receiving not a single farthing for himself, when he is out of pocket for the whole of the interest which is due upon the sum that he is advanced, seems to be not merely intolerable, but contrary to all our ideas of justice.

I hope that the Financial Secretary has appreciated the burden which will rest upon mortgagees, and upon second mortgagee in particular. He is in a position now to implement what the Solicitor-General has more than once said, that he looks at these matters not merely from the point of view of the revenue or of the tax collector or the Treasury, but looks at them fairly from the point of view of the taxpayer also. He has told us on more than one occasion that such and such a proposal is not in the interests of the taxpayer. I have ventured to doubt whether the Solicitor-General can be altogether trusted to look after the taxpayer. He is after other game; he is after the tax; he does not care about the taxpayer, at any rate as long as the taxpayer has any blood to be squeezed out of him. I hope that, having regard to the interest which the Solicitor-General has professed in the fortunes of the taxpayer, the Financial Secretary will see the natural justice of saying that the mortgagee shall not be liable for any greater amount of tax than that which is equal to the rents and profits he has received. We are not asking that the mortgagee shall be free to collect any money for himself. We merely say, "At any rate let the poor man go away when he has paid over to the tax collector everything that he has received." What could be fairer than that?

Here is a mortgagee who has lent his money. His interest has fallen into arrears. He has done the only thing he can do to collect the interest; he has gone into possession. He collects some rents and profits, it may be a few pounds. Then the tax collector comes along. We are not suggesting that the mortgagee shall say, "No, you shall not get anything until I have collected my interest or reduced the overdraft at my bank, or paid the person who put up the money for me to advance." All that we ask is that, when he has paid over everything that he has laboriously collected in respect of the land, he shall be discharged from any further burden in respect of the
tax. It is a charge upon the land. The Government can presumably take advantage of the charge whenever the land comes to be sold, and until that time arrives it is only fair and decent that the mortgagee shall not be compelled to do more than disgorge the rents and profits that he has collected in order to keep his security effective.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that I shall rather too soon lose the kindly things which the hon. and learned Gentleman said to me. If his words were spoken in anticipation of favours to come, I am afraid he will be disappointed. The Amendment is to give effect to the idea that when a mortgagee is in possession of property there will be certain rents and emoluments coming to him, and it is suggested that he shall not be liable for a greater amount in tax than he obtains under the net yield from the property of which he is in possession.

Sir T. INSKIP: Not net. The gross yield. "The amount of the rents and profits received by him."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes that
a mortgagee shall not be liable to pay by way of tax in respect of the part of the mortgaged premises of which he is in possession a greater amount than the amount of rents and profits received by him.
Off-hand that sounds a very reasonable proposal, but let us see to what it amounts. The mortgagee has stepped into possession and has taken the place of the owner—the owner, let us say, of a piece of undeveloped land, on which he is receiving quite a small rent, who is willing to accept that small rent, perhaps far less than 5 per cent. on the purchase price of the value of the land, because the land is ripening, and the time will come in five or 10 or 15 years when he will get a very much enhanced value on the sale of the land. The mortgagee steps into the position for the moment of the owner of the land, and the principle embodied in this Bill is that in such cases the owner of the land, or the mortgagee where the mortgagee occupies the position of the owner of the land, shall be liable for tax. If we were once to admit the principle, in regard to a mortgagee in possession, that he could have his tax reduced because the
current annual yield from the land failed to give the full amount, we should be cutting at once into the principle of the tax.
The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the mortgagee is not fully protected, but he will find that in Clause 16 of the Bill the rights of the mortgagee are fully protected. The mortgagee has the right to add the tax to any charge to which he is entitled under the mortgage, and the Clause provides that that addition is with priority over all other charges on that estate and with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the case of the second mortgagee. He pointed out that a second mortgagee might be in possession of a property, while having to pay to the first mortgagee the annual charge on the first mortgage. Clause 16 protects a second mortgagee in that case and enables him to recover that amount along with the other charges.

Sir T. INSKIP: Is the hon. Gentleman not assuming that there is some surplus value in the second mortgagee's possession? What is the good of adding another charge on land the whole value of which has already been exhausted? The hon. Gentleman might just as well put into the Clause a figure of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. If there is nothing to take by way of security it is not much good saying, "You may add something else to your security."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the second mortgagee?

Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, I thought the hon. Gentleman said that there was some protection for him in Clause 16.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, there is, because it is provided that any tax assessed on a mortgagee shall he a charge on the mortgaged estate with priority over all other charges, and therefore priority over the payment to the first mortgagee. The mortgagee in possession is fully protected under Clause 16. We shall discuss that point in greater detail on a later Amendment, but, in view of the protection given by Clause 16 and the fact that the present Amendment would cut across the principle of the tax and place a mortgagee in possession in a better position than the owner of undeveloped land
which is ripening for the purpose of sale, the Government are unable to see their way to accept the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman, I have noticed during these discussions, always assumes that the value of land is going to improve. That assumption is at the root of all his arguments. His argument may or may not be sound in the case of land which is improving in value, but my hon. and learned Friend's argument was in reference to the case of property in which there is no surplus value. There are many such properties, and the people who lend money on mortgage, however careful and well-advised they may be, do not always make good bargains. Frequently they lend money on property which deteriorates. I have some knowledge of these matters as a former director of an insurance company, and I know that in many of these cases, unless they are very carefully guarded by the conditions of the mortgage, the lenders may find themselves "landed," if I may use the term, with a property which is deteriorating in value and the owner of which, through no fault of his own, is unable any longer to pay the dues of the individual or the company lending the money. I ask the hon. Gentleman to deal not with the case of property which is gradually appreciating in value, but with the case of property which is deteriorating, but on which, nevertheless, under these proposals tax is payable.
We say that in those circumstances it is monstrous to expect the unfortunate mortgagee who finds himself, through an error of judgment, in possession of property which has no surplus value or on which there is only a very small return, to pay to the Exchequer a larger sum than he receives. That is our objection, and it has not been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman's argument. He talked of current annual yield, and seemed to suggest that though there might be a loss at a particular moment the mortgagee in all these cases would be able to recoup himself in future. But the property might continue to deteriorate. I have some knowledge of land values and, if these proposals ever come into operation, I know that the value of certain land will deteriorate very much. It would be out of order to go into that subject now, but
we must not assume in dealing with this matter that all land will appreciate in value.
There is another argument. It is generally admitted in all countries where agriculture is depressed—and in no country is it more depressed than in this country—that one method by which the State can help agriculture, is by allowing money to be lent on easy terms on the security of agricultural land. Surely this proposal will act as discouragement to that method of assisting agriculture by making it much harder for people to obtain money on mortgage. This is a point which arises in connection with a number of the Clauses of the Bill. It is no part of the Government's policy to discourage the lending of money on land where there is a reasonable security, but the Clause must have that effect unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. We attach some importance to this Amendment, because it is a glaring example of the great injustice which might be done under the Clause, and we shall certainly go to a Division if the Government will not give way.

Mr. ATKINSON: The fallacy of the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rests in this: He said that a mortgagee going into possession steps into the position of the owner. That is wholly wrong. In the very great bulk of cases where the mortgagee goes into possession there is no surplus value. If there is, of course the mortgagor has retained possession. It is only where rents and profits are not enough to pay the outgoings that he fails to pay, and the mortgagee goes into possession, but he is very far from being in the position of the owner until he has foreclosed. Once he has a foreclosure decree and that has been carried out, he is the owner; he ceases to be the mortgagee and would become liable to this tax, but what you are dealing with here is his position before he has foreclosed and when his rights and duties are strictly regulated by the law. He has merely and solely got the right to seize the rents and profits, but his powers of leasing are restricted; he cannot sell or do anything until he has an order of the court or until there has been a foreclosure decree which has been carried into effect.
During all this time the mortgagor remains personally liable. The State has still the personal liability of the real owner, that is, the mortgagor who has ceased to pay his interest, and merely because the mortgagee takes the first step of entering into possession, or appointing a receiver, towards realising ultimately the security, you certainly cannot say to him, "If you do this, we will put a personal liability upon you as if you were the owner of the land," when he is not. The point of the Amendment is to prevent your putting a personal liability upon a man for a payment which ex hypothesi there is not enough coming out of the land to pay. It must be realised that that is unjust. He is no more the owner of the land than is anybody on these benches. He is merely a person who has taken the first step towards ultimately realising his security.
When one looks at the position of the second mortgagee, he has gone into possession in the hope of maintaining his security ultimately. The second mortgagee may think that, if the thing is properly handled, ultimately there may be enough for everybody, and therefore he has taken upon himself the obligation of paying interest to the first mortgagee, to keep him out, collecting what rents and profits there may be, and possibly losing money meanwhile. This will hit him even as it is, because this land charge would have to come first out of the rents and profits, but, supposing there is not enough, how can it be fair to say that it should be a personal liability? If the position is appreciated by the Government, I think the Amendment will be accepted, and when one remembers that the words of the Financial Secretary to justify his refusal of the Amendment were not accurate—I mean the words that the mortgagee steps into the position of the owner—it will be seen that if the argument is based on that, it is based on a fallacy. I hope the Government will reconsider the position.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot help thinking that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) do not appreciate the Amendment. They assume that the Amendment would protect a mortgagee who had stepped into
possession and who did not obtain any surplus value over and above the charge on the mortgage. There is nothing about that in the Amendment. Suppose that there is property valued at £1,000 which has therefore a Land Value Tax of about £4, and suppose that the mortgage is for £750 and, to take the Noble Lord's case, that the property has fallen in value to, say, £500, if the profits are coming in on the basis of £500 value, say, £25, then the Government say that out of that £25, £4 Land Value Tax will have to be paid. There is nothing in the Amendment to stop that.

Mr. ATKINSON: Assume the case of an empty shop in Regent Street.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: One moment. The Opposition Amendment would still leave the mortgagee in that case liable to the tax, because he would have out of it £25 rents and profits received by him, which would be in excess of the £4 Land Value Tax. The reason why I took the particular case of undeveloped land which was appreciating in value was because I thought that that was the only case in which the annual rents and profits received by the mortgagee from the land were likely to fall below the value of the tax. In all other cases, except in the most extraordinary case which it is hardly possible to conceive, the rents and profits must be above the Land Value Tax.

Earl WINTERTON: Take the case of a shop in Regent Street, as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, although that is not a very good example, because there they are nearly all Crown leases; but take the case of a shop in some street near Regent Street which is not Crown property. The mortgagee enters into possession—there is no dispute between us on that point—and at the time he enters into possession the shop is fully let. There is a heavy Land Value Tax on a shop of that kind. After he has entered into possession bad times come and the shop becomes vacant. His situation would then be that he would be paying to the State in tax more than he would be receiving in rent.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I can only conceive that to be possible where practically the whole of the building is unlet. I should want to see it worked out, how it could happen, but I think it
would be very unlikely that the gross rents and profits as a whole due to the mortgagee of the property would fail to exceed the Land Value Tax on it. But suppose for the sake of argument that that could be so for a short period—it could only be for a short period, because the mortgagee obviously would set about taking steps either to let the place or to sell it—very soon he could realise a great deal more, and out of that he would recoup himself if for 12 months he had failed to meet the land tax. But the case that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was putting was that of undeveloped land, where the mortgagee may be for some years kept out of having a balance on the right side. I do not think that the ease put by the Noble Lord would exist very often, and, even where it did exist, it would be only temporary and the mortgagee would have a speedy remedy to deal with it.

Captain CAZALET: May I put the case in pounds, shillings, and pence. Let us assume that an individual has invested £100 in a mortgage at a low rate of interest, say 3 per cent. He gets a low rate because the security is supposed to be good. Owing to a variety of circumstances, he enters into possession because the £3 a year is not being paid. The mere coming into existence of the incidence of this tax has already depreciated the value of that mortgage. All we say in this Amendment is that if the individual who has invested his money in this particular piece of property is not receiving the £3 which is his due, but is only receiving £l a year——

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The tax is only 1d. in the £, and on £100 is 8s. 4d.

Captain CAZALET: It may well be that he is receiving nothing whatever, as would be the case in the instance of an empty house or an empty shop. I only took the figure of £1 to illustrate the point of the Amendment, which is that if he only gets £1, the tax which is charged should never be more than the sum he is receiving from his investment. It seems perfectly reasonable, and I cannot understand any argument that can be used against it.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the particular property such as hon. Members opposite are instancing becomes so remunerative as
they are making out in order to get the Government to accept their Amendment, is it possible for anybody to say why the mortgagee should not foreclose instead of entering into possession?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: One wonders whether hon. Members opposite have really understood the case. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he will think over the case, will find that there can be a very real hardship underlying this. Let me put it to him once again, and take the case that he has assumed. That is the case of a property worth £1,000, on which the tax would be roughly £4. The mortgage is £750, and the property may have diminished in value so as to be worth only £500. His argument is that even a value of £500 will bring in an annual income of about £25 a year, and that therefore it is perfectly obvious for the mortgagee to pay a £4 tax, with a considerable margin left.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Amendment would not protect that man.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish the hon. Gentleman would consider that that is not really the kind of case we have in mind. We have in mind the kind of case in which we think the administration of this tax is really to be feared, and we are trying to envisage the possibility. My hon. Friend behind me took the case of an empty 9.0 p.m. shop. It is clear that an empty shop will bring in no income, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it will be empty for only a short time. I am not thinking of a shop in Regent Street, but of a shop of which hon. Members from the mining areas will be perfectly familiar. They know quite well that a great deal of the hardship in the district where the mining industry is being hardest hit falls not only upon the miners, but upon the shopkeepers and all the community around whose livelihood depends upon the miners. In those districts—I have seen them in South Wales, Durham and Northumberland—there is quite a considerable site value on some of the shops, and the tax might be, I do not say an enormous sum, but quite substantial in proportion to the interests concerned. When shops become empty in those circumstances, and the person who happens
to be the unfortunate mortgagee enters into possession, he has not any receipts from the shop with which to pay the tax. There may be no receipts for a continuing period.
In the illustration which he gave, the Financial Secretary said that on the property worth £1,000 the tax would be £4. He assumes that the tax will be one penny, but when he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer wish to play to their own side, they hold out an inducement that the penny will grow, and that it will become 2d., 3d. and 4d. in the £. We have had time and again hon. Members opposite, encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Ministers on the Front Bench, saying that they are not proceeding with this Bill on the hypothesis that the tax will always be one penny, but, on the contrary, that it is a tax that may grow. Therefore, there is no substance whatever in the defence that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has put up. He says that the Amendment will not be any defence for the mortgagee. If, however, we think that the mortgagee would like it, why cannot he make some concession? If there is no objection to it from his point of view, why not let us have a thing by which we set some value? Here all that is asked is that he shall not pay in tax an amount which is greater than the amount of the rents and profits received by him after any deduction of Income Tax or of the tax, or any part of the tax, under this Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury used the word "emoluments." There is no question of emoluments of any kind. All we say is that the mortgagee who is in a position of this kind ought not to be liable, in his own person, above and beyond any rents and profits, for any tax that may be charged. On the case we are putting, the person who is liable is a man who is not the owner himself because, ex hypothesi, he has not foreclosed, but is a man whom you are going to make liable over and above any rents and profits that may have come into his hands, and yet at the same time the State has its recourse against the real owner. I have never known any case which has so much outdone the case in the Scriptures which speaks of thy adversary delivering thee to the judge and
the judge casting thee into prison and there being no escape until the uttermost farthing has been paid. Here it is not only the uttermost farthing that suffices, something more is to be demanded. I am sure that if the Financial Secretary looks further into the case he will find it is one which can be met.

Mr. BENSON: It would be as well if hon. Members opposite consulted together to decide what kind of case this Amendment is designed to meet.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is more than one case.

Mr. BENSON: I know perfectly well the kind of case the Amendment is intended to meet. Hon. Members first of all say that it is not land that is advancing in value, but that it is small property. Somebody suggests a shop in Bond Street, somebody eke suggests a shop just outside Bond Street, and then the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) says it is a shop in some small, depressed mining area.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I did not say it was not a shop elsewhere. I asked the Financial Secretary to consider the case of a shop in a email mining area which, I said, deserved as much consideration as any other case.

Mr. BENSON: Let us take these cases one by one. Take the case of the really valuable shop let at £1,000 a year. Broadly speaking, a shop property bringing in that rent would be worth from £15,000 to £18,000—say 18 years' purchase. At one penny in the pound the tax upon that amounts to £75. That means that before the mortgagee has lost in tax the amount of one year's rent that shop has to remain empty for 12 years. It is rather ridiculous to suggest that a valuable shop bringing in anything like £1,000 a year is likely to remain empty for 12 years. Then let us take the case of a smaller shop let at about £25 a year, with a Land Tax of, say, about £4—less than one-sixth of the annual value. Small shops do not remain empty for six years.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member answer this point? The mortgagee is put in possession because the shop has become vacant and he is in possession for two years, after which the original owner is able to satisfy him and goes back. What happens then?

Mr. BENSON: The mortgagee has paid about £8 in tax, and is entitled to add that £8 to his mortgage—[Interruption.]—the Bill says so—and that tax comes before any other charge. There is no injustice at all. I have no doubt that by some ingenuity hon. Members can discover some hypothetical case; they might, if one granted them all their premises, find some small shop on which the annual tax was larger than the income, but they have not done it so far. In all cases which they have given, it is clear that the annual income will cover the tax many times over, and that the mortgagee, even though he may have an abnormal amount of empty property, will have so large a sum, in proportion to the tax, that the question of empties really is not practical politics. There is only one case, one case alone, in which the Land Tax is likely to be larger than the amount of rent received. I am speaking now not without knowledge of land, for I have been an estate agent all my life, and know what I am talking about.
The only case in which land tax is likely to be larger than the amount of rent receivable is that of undeveloped land which is ripening and which has a high capital value. If this Amendment is accepted, that is the kind of property which is going to be exempted, and no other, and that is just the kind of property this Bill is designed to tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "All land!"] When I say that it is just the kind of land this Bill is designed to tax, I mean that that is the type of land that we on this side are most desirous of taxing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring in another Bill!"] No, we tax it quite satisfactorily under this Bill, judging by the amount of wriggling done by hon. Members. This is the kind of land we are particularly desirous of taxing, and this is the only kind of land that will receive any advantage whatsoever under this Amendment. I think it was the right hon. Member for Tamworth who suggested that this Amendment might not be very essential while the tax was at one penny, but that sooner or later the tax would grow. It may or may not, but under the present Bill the tax is one penny, and it is impossible in this Bill to legislate for a tax that may or may not be more than one penny many years hence. If that tax is to be raised it can only be raised in another Finance Bill, and when it is
raised the various safeguards that are necessary can be inserted; they cannot be inserted now.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: This matter has not been given that definite consideration which it deserves. I dispute what the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has asserted, that this Amendment is an attempt to get this particular land out of the purview of the Bill. It is nothing of the sort. There will still remain under Sub-section (7) of this Clause the words:
and shall be a charge on the land in respect of which it is charged.
The simple point we seek to meet is that of the hardship upon the mortgagee in a case where the mortgagee has been called upon to pay. It is not a question of exempting a particular piece of land, or saying that there shall be no tax paid upon it. The tax will still be charged and will be payable. The situation will be that, if the mortgagee is only liable to pay to the extent of the sums which he receives, the land will nevertheless, year by year, be charged in favour of the Government with the amount of the tax; and, if and when the mortgagee sells the land, and there is sufficient to pay him the amount of his mortgage and the amount of unpaid interest, the Treasury would come down and say, "There is a charge upon this land to the amount of the tax which has not been paid, because by the operation of this particular Amendment you, the mortgagor, have not paid, and before you can get anything we are entitled to our tax." It seems to me that that is an answer to the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. To ask us to show a concrete case in present circumstances is rather astonishing. The tax is not operative at the moment, and therefore it is difficult to imagine how we can show a concrete instance.
Although there may be a substantial mortgage on premises which are supposed to have a particular value by reason of difficulties in a particular locality, it is sometimes impossible for months and even for years, to exercise the power of sale, for the reason that in the midst of all those difficulties nobody will buy the property. This is particularly so in places where you cannot let the premises, and where the mortgagee is in the position that he has a charge on the land
in respect of his mortgage money, and also in respect of interest which, year after year, is still accruing and has not been paid. I am sure the hon. Member for Chesterfield, with his experience, will agree with me when I say that that class of case is constantly arising in practice. I do not say that this is very common, but those who have had experience in dealing with small properties know that that is a case which often arises.
All this Amendment seeks to do with regard to a mortgagee in that unhappy position is to say, "You shall not be personally liable to pay out of your own pocket more than the sum of money which you have received from the property." I think it is just as well to state, for the information of hon. Members opposite, that the money collected by the mortgagee does not all go into his pocket. He has to account for it, and, if there is any surplus over and above his annual interest, he has to credit it against the mortgage money. If there is no income he has no fund to which he can turn, and his only other remedy is the issuing of a writ against the mortgagor, and in practice that is not much use. I think this question needs a little closer examination. There is the case where individual hardship may arise to a mortgagee who finds himself placed in the position which I have indicated, and I hope the Government still think it is possible to examine this question a little more closely with a view to offering some concession on the Report stage.

Sir S. ROBERTS: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said that he could not conceive of land increasing in value until the land tax was greater than the income. The hon. Member represents a constituency not far from the City of Sheffield, and near Sheffield he would find a large skeleton of an erection put up by the Harmsworth Press when they were going to start an evening newspaper in that district. That skeleton remains there, and there is no income from it. That is a case within my own personal knowledge. I do not say that in this case there was a mortgagee, but, if there was a mortgagee, he would have to pay the Land Value Tax. That is a case which is not land development on the outskirts of the town. If the hon. Member for Chesterfield goes to the East End of the City which I represent, he will find there large factories which are derelict, shut up, and no work is being done in them. There is no purchaser for those factory sites. No doubt the tax will be put upon them, but there is no income. That is another instance. That is not developed land, because it is land which is bringing in no income at all, and yet it would have to pay land tax under this Bill. I have brought these instances to the notice of the Government, because I do not think they have realised all the possibilities of this tax.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206, Noes, 285.

Division No. 308.]
AYES.
[9.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Albery, Irving James
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Butler, R. A.
Croom-Johnson. R. P.


Astor, Maj- Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Astor, Viscountess
Campbell, E. T.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkinson, C.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beaumont, M. W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
England, Colonel A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colfox, Major William Philip
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Colman, N. C. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Colville, Major D. J.
Ferguson, Sir John


Boyce, Leslie
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fielden, E. B.


Bracken, B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Briscoe, Richard George
Conrtauld, Major J. S.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cowan, D. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Buchan, John
Cranborne, Viscount
Ganzonl, Sir John


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lymington, Viscount
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Grace, John
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smithers, Waldron


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Meller, R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hanburv. C.
Muirhead, A. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J.
Thompson, Luke


Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, Sir F.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Sir George
Train, J.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turner, Sir Ben


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Ramsbotham, H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Iveagh, Countess of
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wells, Sydney R.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, John R.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Withers, Sir John James


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, W. J.


Lewis. Oswald (Colchester)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Salmon, Major I.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Savery, S. S.
Captain Wallace and Captain Hudson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Gill, T. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cameron, A. G.
Gillett, George M.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Glassey, A. E.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Chater, Daniel
Gossling, A. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Church, Major A. G.
Gould, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Clarke, J. S,
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Gray, Milner


Arnott, John
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Aske, Sir Robert
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, William G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Ayles, Walter
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Daggar, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dallas, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barr, James
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Day, Harry
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Benson, G.
Duncan, Charles
Hardie. G. D. (Springburn)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Harris, Percy A.


Blindell, James
Edge, Sir William
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Edmunds, J. E.
Hayes, John Henry


Bowen, J. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Egan, W. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Elmley, Viscount
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bromfield, William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Herriotts, J.


Bromley, J.
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H, (York W. R. Wentworth)


Brooke, W.
Foot, Isaac
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Brothers, M.
Freeman, Peter
Hoffman, P. C.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hopkin, Daniel


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Buchanan, G.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Burgess, F. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Isaacs, George


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jenkins, Sir William


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossloy)
John, William (Rhondda, West)




Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Mills, J. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Milner, Major J.
Simmons, C. J.


Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Montague, Frederick
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sinkinson, George


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morley, Ralph
Sitch, Charles H.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Kelly, W. T.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Muff, G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Kinley, J.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Knight, Holford
Murnin, Hugh
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lang, Gordon
Naylor, T. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sorensen, R.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Oldfield, J. R.
Strauss, G. R.


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sullivan, J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sutton, J. E.


Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Leach, W.
Palin, John Henry
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Palmer, E. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Less, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tillett, Ben


Leonard. W.
Perry, S. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tout, W. J.


Lindley, Fred W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Vaughan, David


Logan, David Gilbert
Pole, Major D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Longbottom, A. W.
Potts, John S.
Walkden. A. G.


Longden, F.
Price, M. P.
Walker, J.


Lovat-Fraser. J. A.
Pybus, Percy John
Wallace, H. W.


Lunn, William
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Watkins, F. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Raynes, W. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richards, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


McElwee, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


McEntee, V. L.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
West, F. R.


McKinlay, A.
Ritson, J.
Westwood, Joseph


MacLaren, Andrew
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
White, H. G.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Rameril, H. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


McShane, John James
Rowson, Guy
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Manning, E. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lanelly)


Mansfield, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


March, S.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Marcus, M.
Sandham, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Markham, S. F.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Marley, J.
Scott, James
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Marshall, Fred
Sexton, Sir James
Wise, E. F.


Mathers, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Matters, L. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Maxton, James
Sherwood, G. H.



Messer, Fred
Shield, George William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Middleton, G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
() Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners in respect of a land unit assessed to tax that in consequence of the coming into force of new statutory restrictions made during the valuation period immediately preceding such assessment the value of such unit has been decreased, and that the owner of the unit has paid the tax as assessed, he shall be entitled to claim from the Commissioners the repayment of an amount equal to the difference between the assessed tax and the tax at which the unit would have been assessed if such new statutory restrictions had been in force at the date when the assessment was made.

The Amendment which stands in my name and in that of other hon. Members
is intended to deal with a point which has been put before the Committee on more than one occasion. I would like to say at once, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, that it is not a drafting Amendment. It is an Amendment of substance, and it is one that is set forth in order to deal with what I think the Solicitor-General will admit is a case which requires serious consideration. We are dealing in the Committee with these proposals and at the same time another Committee upstairs is dealing with the whole subject of town planning, and the point of this Amendment is that it is obviously possible, as this Bill is drafted, that an owner of land shall be assessed to tax under this Bill, and that, having
been assessed to tax, there will then be put into operation a town planning scheme, the effect of which may be to decrease the value of his land.

That decrease in the value of his land is not a penalty for any wrong-doing on his part; it is merely the putting into operation of a provision which is intended for the benefit of the whole community, but which happens to be to the disadvantage of the particular individual concerned. Under the Bill as it stands, he nevertheless continues to be assessed on the original value of his land—the value which was estimated before this new statutory provision came into force; and he will have to pay the tax upon that false value until a new valuation takes place and the necessary amendment can be made. Therefore, it may happen that for four years in succession he will be called upon, as the Bill stands, to pay tax upon a value which no longer represents the value of his land then—a value which has been altered by a provision over which he has no control, but which is the effect of a Statute.

I leave it to the Solicitor-General to deny that the Value of the land belonging to an individual owner will be altered by a town-planning scheme. There are various ways in which it may he altered, but I will only give one as an illustration to the Committee, although I am sure plenty of other illustrations will occur to their minds. Under the Town Planning Acts, it is possible for the town planning authority to do what is called zone the area of land; that is to say, they may allocate to certain areas a particular user. They may exclude from certain areas particular kinds of buildings, and, similarly, they may confine to a particular locality the right to erect particular kinds of buildings.

Suppose that in a given area the local authority decides that it is necessary to confine the erection of factories to a certain part of the area. What is the effect of that? Before this provision comes into operation, anybody may put up a factory in any part of the area if he thinks that it is suitable for his purpose. If the area is a large one, the chances that a factory will be put up on any particular site may very likely be remote; but, under the town planning scheme, it may be provided that factories are excluded from the greater part of the
area, and can only be erected on one particular part of it. Supposing that that is so, it means that, if any factories at all are to be erected in that area, they must be erected in the particular part of it which is allocated to them, and the natural consequence of that would be that any land which was used for residential purposes abutting upon that new factory area would be decreased in value. That is a case which would come under the provisions of this Amendment.

Further, I would point out to the Solicitor-General and to the Committee that, if this provision was necessary under the old Town Planning Acts, it is still more necessary under the Bill which is now going through Committee upstairs, because, as hon. Members may recollect, under that Bill the Minister has the power—an extensive power—of making a declaration to the effect that no compensation shall be payable to an owner in respect of various restrictions that may be put upon his land by the operation of the town planning scheme. That may be all right as far as the town planning scheme is concerned; I am not concerned now to discuss that point; but, if the owner is not only to have the value of his land decreased, but is to be denied any compensation for that decrease under the Town and Country Planning Bill which is now before a Committee upstairs, surely that is an additional reason why, if he is to be assessed before the town planning restriction comes into force, and if he is not to be relieved by having his valuation altered, he should at least be given the power to recover from the Commissioners the excess of tax which he has wrongly paid. I am quite sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that a good case has been made out, and that he will be ready to give us the accommodation that we desire.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Amendment is really, in effect, an attack upon quinquennial valuation. The difficulty, of course, always arises, when one has a quinquennial valuation, of variations in value during the quinquennium, and I suppose that everyone would regard it as the ideal that one should have a valuation as often as possible, if that were a practicable system of procedure. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed rather that the effect of a town planning scheme is always to decrease the value of
the land. He did not tell us what he proposed should be done as regards those units the value of which increased during the quinquennium. But, naturally, if there is some provision as regards decreases, there would have to be a similar provision as regards increase, in order to make the procedure in any way fair. The matter, however, would not even end there. The fact that a decrease or increase results from a town planning scheme is not really material so far as land value is concerned; there may just as well be a decrease or an increase arising from some other cause altogether. For instance, as everyone anticipates, the values of land are generally going to rise throughout the country, and this is in fact a provision which will benefit the owner. [Interruption.] I did not catch the interruption of the hon. Member; perhaps it was not worth catching.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I said that there might be a General Election.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: After the General Election, we shall collect more land tax than before. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned zoning as an example. One of the features of zoning is that it is designed to increase and improve the value of the land. I know the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that the principle which lies behind zoning is good estate management; in fact, the principle which lies behind all town planning is good estate management, and the ideal of the town planner is so to allocate the land within his area that all of it is used to the best advantage, that is to say, that all of it is so used as to give the best results. Although it is perfectly true in some cases—I do not quite agree as to the case of factories which the right hon. Gentleman cited—although in some cases the effect of zoning might be to decrease the value of the land, in the vast majority of cases the zoning would increase its value. Moreover, the effect of zoning would be to give a great measure of protection and fixation of values where there are large gardens to the houses. The effect of zoning, therefore, is eminently designed to preserve the value. Similarly, when you have houses two, three or four to the acre, the idea is to preserve the value and to stop people coming in in
order that they may affect adversely the value of the land and property of their neighbours.
That being the principle of town planning, I should have thought it was abundantly clear that the first thing to think of is how the State is to get the increase which will follow upon the town planning scheme. But that in our view is not a practical or a fair thing to do. Once you adopt the principle of the quinquennial assessment, you cannot start meddling in the middle of the quinquennium with the valuation. The whole principle of it is that you have it fixed at the beginning and for that period of five years it is a certain fixed figure. If once you are to depart from that, the only possible logical line of departure would be to have a provision by which, whenever there is a change of value, for whatever reason, in any land unit, there is a reassessment. That obviously would be a wholly impracticable scheme, and, moreover, in the long run it would clearly not be to the advantage of the owners of property, not that that is the sole reason for adopting the quinquennial period. The reason is quite well known, and it is one which has been given and used in a number of other cases, such as the valuation of the metropolis for rating purposes and other cases of that sort, and it has worked and has served as a reliable method of valuation. There will undoubtedly be cases where property will go down in value, and there will be other and more numerous cases where it will go up, hut to try to fix it mathematically correctly is a hopeless impracticability, and for that reason I regret that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I have read in the newspapers this week-end how successful the Solicitor-General has been in putting forward the views of his party on this Bill, and I am in general agreement as to the considerable success he has enjoyed in the very difficult task which has confronted him. But I do not think he would care to be judged by the observations he has made on this Amendment, and I do not think they can give any satisfaction in any quarter of the House. My right hon. Friend says that if under a statutory enactment during a particular valuation period a unit has decreased in value, in fairness, honesty
and justice an alteration should be made so far as the payment of Land Value Tax is concerned. I do not think anyone could possibly object to the fairness and justice of that principle, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not attempted to do so. I should have thought it was obvious to anyone except those who desire to crop up an unsatisfactory proposal of this kind that, if an Act of Parliament came along and its effect was to decrease the value of a particular unit of land, a consequential adjustment ought to be made in justice to the owner of the land. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "This is a five years' valuation. You must not do anything in connection with it. Five years is a sacred figure, and anything that may happen, either an increase or a decrease, during that five years must not be interfered with." What a monstrous injustice! It shows the basis upon which these proposals have been conceived, and how very little thought has been given to them.
The proper reply would be, not that this does not cover an increase as well as a decrease, but, "I will accept the Amendment and include an increase as well." It is no answer to the Amendment to say it only covers a decrease and that no suggestion is made for an increase. The obvious reply, if they want to do the fair thing, is "Inasmuch as the Amendment only deals with a decrease, on Report we will bring up an Amendment to cover both an increase and a decrease." He said there may be other cases besides the particular matters in the Amendment which may bring about a decrease or an increase. There may be, but I think in the first place there is a distinction to be drawn between an increase and a decrease which come as a result of a statutory enactment. Here you have an Act of Parliament which brings about an increase or a decrease in the value of land. So defective is the Bill that there is no possibility of putting it right. Inasmuch as it is a statutory enactment which brings about this increase or decrease, that is altogether different from other causes.
My second answer is that, if there are other causes that take place during those five years, surely it is right and proper that a correction in the value should be made. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman
mean to tell me there is no precedent on the Statute Book by which Amendments can be made during periods of this character? He has forgotten to mention the Rating and Valuation Act itself, which provides a method by which corrections can be made. Instead of saying there are other causes, and therefore this matter cannot be put right, why did he not say, "We will put it in the Bill in order to do fairness and justice. We will follow the precedent of the Rating and Valuation Act and provide for a correction to be made in the value acting upon well recognised principles"?
He actually came forward with an argument which is rather peculiar from that particular bench. He said this is not in the interests of property owners. I should like to know when the Solicitor-General was particularly anxious about property owners in connection with these proposals. He is very anxious about them in connection with this matter, but he apparently forgets all about them in connection with his main proposals. Property owners are criminals as far as the main proposals of the Bill are concerned. When it comes to giving a fair meed of justice so far as this proposal is concerned, he says, "I could not do that. It might damage owners of property." I can understand the Attorney-General saying that with a certain amount of confidence and truth. But the Solicitor-General! No, Sir. We could not admit that as far as he is concerned. Justice and fairness will not be done to the owners of property or to the State if the Amendment be not accepted. If you take the view, as the Government do, that this particular tax upon land is a right, proper and fair thing, and if, in fact, the value of the land increases during the particular period of five years, In justice to the State you should make an Amendment for that particular period. If, on the other hand, you want to do justice, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has so frequently declared, to owners of property, and the value of the land decreases, it should be possible, in justice and fairness, to make an amendment during that period.
Therefore, on both these points I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, on reflection, will agree that his answer does not give the real reason why the Amendment should be rejected. I suppose that the real reason, if I may supply it to the
hon. and learned Gentleman—and hon. Members behind him, no doubt, would like to know it—is, that if you permitted Amendments of this character, the machinery under the Act, doubtful and ricketty as it is under the present proposals, would almost completely collapse if provision were made for such a proposal. The more you examine these proposals and endeavour to be fair and just on the one hand to the State, and on the other hand to the property owners of the country, you see how futile and useless are the provisions of the Bill.

Captain BOURNE: The Committee must have heard with some astonishment the statement of the learned Solicitor-General that the effect of the Town and Country Planning Bill would be to put up land values. This happens to be a question of particular interest to my constituents. We are extremely anxious to get a good town planning scheme, but not from the point of view of raising the value of land. You may desire, as we desire in Oxford, when town planning, not to raise values but to preserve amenities, and preserving amenities does not necessarily mean raising the site values. They are two totally different aspects of the question. A person may desire to get the biggest possible pecuniary return from an estate and he may, on the contrary, desire to preserve its character, realising full well that if he does so the return will not be so great in cash as that which he could have obtained if he had chosen to throw it open to general competition. I think that the Solicitor-General has entirely confused those two aspects of the benefit in his answer.
I will give an example. In Oxford, we are extremely anxious to preserve a green belt round the town. In fact, it is one of the biggest necessities, 10.0 p.m. if Oxford is to preserve its present character. It will mean taking in many sites on the south side of the city. Oxford has developed rather rapidly in recent years, and does anybody mean to say that if you permitted those sites to be built upon, the site values would not be enormously greater than if they had been preserved in perpetuity as open spaces? That is the question. The prudent point of view of Oxford in preserving the city, in some
ways unique, and in preserving its amenities, is that it is highly desirable that they should keep those spaces open for that purpose. But it is not good estate management from the point of view of getting the highest revenue which can be derived from the land, and the two things are by no means exactly compatible. You may desire to preserve a beauty spot, or a certain view, or an historical wood, and, in order to do so, you may willingly take a very much lower financial return from the property than if you were prepared to rack-rent it for building or industrial purposes. The object of town planning, as I understand it, is to prevent the exploitation of the natural beauty spots and amenities of a town on a purely commercial basis.
If I am right in than interpretation, the whole of the argument of the Solicitor-General falls to the ground, because he is arguing that the object of town planning is to increase the site value. I will take the case which he gave. He says that in a certain area—I think he mentioned Edgbaston, which I do not know—the mere fact that you preserve a residential area with houses and gardens will, in point of fact, raise the site value of that part. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member opposite, I notice, agrees with him. But take a great city where those areas exist and where, in many cases, they have highly commercial enterprises, such as Woolworths. Does the hon. and learned Member mean to say that Woolworths would not give a vastly higher price for one of those sites? An hon. Gentleman says "No." I can give an instance in Oxford where residential property has been sold for commercial purposes. It will, in the hon. and learned Member's opinion, be desirable, but it is not the object of town planning. He should make up his mind. Does he want rack-rents, and to get the highest value for every site for commercial purposes or does he wish to preserve the amenities? Upon that, his answer to this question depends.
There was another remark of the learned Solicitor-General which surprised me. He says that where land has increased in value under town planning—and I think that we all admit that in certain cases increase has taken place—it is only fair that the State should take part of the benefit. That may or may not be a good argument, but I think that he
overlooked the fact that in the Town and Country Planning Bill now before the Committee upstairs the proposal of His Majesty's Government is that the local authorities shall take 100 per cent. of the value, and that it be attributed to zoning. If that is the case, what right has the Treasury to come down and ask for additional taxation? If you zone land, and use A's land for building, and B's land is not taken for that purpose, the local authority, or the town planning authority responsible for putting up regulations, may say to the man who is allowed benefit, "We want a large share of your benefit in order to compensate the man who is not allowed benefit." That may or may not be an argument, but once you have given the local authority or a town planning authority the statutory right to take it, the Exchequer has no right to come down and put on an additional tax.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It is not merely the ignorance of the Solicitor-General in regard to town planning, but his childish faith in the quinquennium period that I complain about. I realise that from the time of Nero to the age of Stalin there is something attractive to hon. Members opposite with regard to the period of five years. I can only suppose that the Solicitor-General has some blind faith in the five years period. I find a number of new crimes indicated in the Bill. For instance, in Clause 23 there is a new crime if the unfortunate seller of the land does not furnish full particulars. It seems almost as if the Solicitor-General proposes to include another new crime, that of meddling with the quinquennium. There are exceptions to every rule, even to the sanctity of the quinquennium. We have heard of the creation by the State of new rights. I suppose the Solicitor-General would describe that as a "novus actus interveniens," which changes entirely the rights of the parties, and an entirely new situation arises. If we pass an Act of Parliament creating new rights, that may be regarded as meddling with the quinquennium. The Solicitor-General has no argument except that it is more convenient that the quinquennium should remain absolutely sacrosanct. It is characteristic of the whole proposals of this singularly misconceived Bill, that if you deviate from the rule of thumb you create a situation
which is impracticable. If you deviate from a simple rule, which applies to the just and the unjust, and which is sought to apply to a situation to which it cannot apply; unless you remain faithful to the rule of thumb principle, the Bill will not work. That is the only argument to which the Solicitor-General has addressed himself. He might make an exception to this principle.
The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has introduced the question of the Town Planning Bill. We have not had any argument on the Town Planning Bill, and I think the Solicitor-General might apply his mind to this principle. If we pass an Act of Parliament which creates an entirely new situation, must the sacred principle of five years still apply? The Town Planning Bill is one Bill that may create an entirely new situation and other Bills may be passed affecting enormously the value of property during the five years. It seems to me an absolute injustice that Parliament should take no cognisance of what action it may adopt in the future. It ought to preserve its rights to pass future legislation, without prejudice to the rights of any of the King's subjects. I think that the Solicitor-General, in preserving the sacred principle of the inviolability of the quinquennium, is taking an attitude which he cannot possibly justify. He suggested that in a particular case there might be an enormous rise in the value of land as a result of this legislation. He suggested that, as the result of the return of a Socialist Government to power at the General Election, the value of land would enormously increase. I can hardly take him seriously, and I would ask him to treat the House a little more seriously than that. Everyone knows that as the result of this legislation the value of land will almost disappear, and the revenue will lose enormous sums under Schedule A. Therefore, what he will gain on the swings, he will lose on the roundabouts.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: It seems clear that there is no answer to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). As he moved the Amendment I wondered what the answer could possibly be. It did not occur to me that the ingenuity of the Solicitor-General would be such as to answer the case by answering another
case which had not been put, forward. His reply was that he must have some period for the valuation. This Amendment is not an attempt to secure a revision of every possible change of values during the period, but to secure a revision in consequence of one particular change of value, and that is a change of value due to the addition of any new statutory provisions. What is it that differentiates that particular change of value from every other change of value? This is a point to which there is no answer, and, there being no answer, the Solicitor-General has not produced it. The differentiation is this, that it is the very party that has made the valuation, that is, the State, which subsequently produces a change of the valuation by imposing fresh legislation.
Look what an intolerable position that creates, intolerable to the sense of fair play on behalf of the average citizen. The State says: "We will value your land and make you pay tax upon it, on the assumption that the laws are such and such. You can make such and such use of your land under the laws of the country, but we impose our valuer upon your land and, under the law, we will exact a tax of so much on that basis." Having done that, the State alters the law in its own favour. It alters the bargain, so to speak, that it struck with the taxpayer. I should call that a fraud upon the taxpayer. Having imposed the tax at a certain rate upon the land, on the assumption that the state of the law was such and such, the State proceeds to confiscate a part of the value upon which it has assessed the tax, and refuses to make any change in the position of the taxpayer, in consequence. If the Government will give this point their attention in the cooler frame of mind which may come after the lapse of time and the healing passage of time which may remove the sting of recent events, they will see that there is a strong case for the Amendment. They cannot afford to produce an intolerable sense of injustice in the mind of the taxpayer. That is what it would appear they wish to do.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will reply first to the last point made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). He said that there is some particular change in value by reason of
statutory enactments. I cannot see what difference it makes in the quality of the land value whether the change arises, if it does arise, by town planning or, let me say, by cutting an arterial road through the country. They are both acts of the State and they are both done, in a sense, in the interests of the State. I cannot see the difference that it makes because one is done under one Act of Parliament and the plan has, therefore, statutory authority, whereas the other is a mere executive act done under the Act of Parliament which empowers it. The Amendment would deal only with the town planning case and would not deal in any way with a case such as the arterial road or any other State work carried out by a municipality under a town planning scheme. Therefore, there is no distinction when one has to consider the question of land value between the various cases which may give rise either to an increase or a decrease in the value of land during the period for which the valuation is to hold good.
The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) accused me of a complete misunderstanding of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and also of town planning conception. The ultimate aim of town planning is good estate management, and the principle of good estate management depends on the ultimate preservation of the values of the estate. Take the case which the hon. and gallant Member put forward, of someone who in one small corner of the estate wishes to realise a high value which will decrease the value of the rest of the estate. That is exactly what town planning aims to prevent, that where you have a desirable suburb, such as I understand is Edgbaston, and someone comes down and sets up a hideous petrol station spoiling the amenities of the district. It is quite true that the man who builds the petrol station on that land may get a higher value, but the whole value of the surrounding land is decreased, and it is the object of town planning to stop that unneighbourly use of land by which owners suffer a decrease in value owing to the selfishness of one particular person in the district. The preservation of the amenities of a district is aimed at preserving the values of land. Take the precise case which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, the green belt around
Oxford. He said that the object of this green belt is to preserve the character of Oxford. Does he suggest that the preservation of the character of Oxford is not an extremely important feature in preserving the values of Oxford? Of course it is a vital feautre, and the purpose of the green belt is to preserve the values of Oxford and not allow them to be commercialised and decreased.

The question of open spaces cannot arise on this question because if these open spaces are permanently planned as open spaces compensation will have to be paid and the compensation to be paid to the person who receives it will be compensation for any loss by virtue of the Land Tax. That question therefore does not arise. The only question which arises is where there is a decrease in property without compensation, and that is a case which as I say will occur very rarely. In regard to another point the hon. and gallant Member answered his own argument, He said that it was not material to consider here the question of betterment but in so far as betterment was taken from people who got an increase in value the people whose land was not bettered would be compensated, if that is so there is no need to take any account either of the increase or the decrease because they compensate each other. I quite agree with that theory, and that probably is the true answer. But that is another matter. Town planning is on a plan of its own, and there is no reason why, because of the Town Planning Bill, any special provision should be made for revaluation during the quinquennium any more than for any other reason which may arise.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he has not appreciated the argument put to him by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young)

or if he has that he has entirely failed to answer it. Let me give an illustration which I am perfectly certain will violate all the principles and instincts he has with regard to the law of the land in which he practises. Let me give an illustration and make an appeal to my learned Friends on the Government Front Bench. I do not profess to know horse-racing, but I do know this, because I have seen these territories marked out and have been told for what they were used. There are large portions of territory which at the present time are being used as training grounds for race-horses. These grounds draw considerable rents. Under the Bill I have not the slightest doubt that the Government representative, if he went down to look at these fields, would assess them on the basis of 20 times the annual rents, and the annual rents are high. But suppose that next year Parliament should pass a law by which horse-racing in this country were made entirely illegal and the training grounds were reduced to their agricultural value, and the rent was unobtainable. Does the learned Solicitor-General say that under those conditions Parliament, which has made it impossible for the tenant to use the ground for the purposes upon which the value is assessed, can really charge him as if that value still existed? The hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that in the case of a private individual no such bargain would ever be upheld by the Courts. Does he say that the State can break the law and is to be allowed to do that kind of thing? If he really applies his mind to the Amendment and gives it fair consideration, he will adopt it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 286.

Division No. 309.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bracken, B.


Albery, Irving James
Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Broadbent, Colonel J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Borks, Newb'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan, John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Astor, Viscountess
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Buckingham, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bird, Ernest Roy
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Atkinson, C.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles w.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Butt, Sir Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boyce, Leslie
Campbell, E. T.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pybus, Percy John


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, John R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Colfox, Major William Philip
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ross, Ronald D.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rothschild, J. de


Colville, Major D. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salmon, Major I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cowan, D. M.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n … Kinc'dlne, C.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Dalkeith, Earl of
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thompson, Luke


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Sir F.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Mitchell-. Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.


Fielden, E. B.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Millar, J. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ganzonl, Sir John
Milchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, W. S. (Glos. Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grace, John
Muirhead, A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Womersley, W. J.


Gray, Milner
O'Connor, T. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Omsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, Captain Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Penny, Sir George
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barnes, Alfred John
Broad, Francis Alfred


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Barr, James
Brockway, A. Fenner


Aitchison. Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hilsbro')
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Bromley, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brooke, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brothers, M.


Angell, Sir. Norman
Benson, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Arnott, John
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bilndell, James
Buchanan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Burgess, F. G.


Ayles, Walter
Bowen, J. W.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.




Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W R. Elland)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Raynes, W. R.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Kinley, J.
Richards, R.


Cameron, A. G.
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Chater, Daniel
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Church, Major A. G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Ritson, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Romerll, H. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H.
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rowson, Guy


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Dallas, George
Leonard, W.
Sandham, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lindley, Fred W.
Scott, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sexton, Sir James


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longden, F.
Sherwood, G. H.


Duncan, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shield, George William


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Shillaker, J. F.


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Egan, W. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Sinkinson, George


Elmley, Viscount
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sitch, Charles H.


Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Foot, Isaac,
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Freeman, Peter
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McShane, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sorensen, R.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Manning, E. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gill, T. H.
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus. M.
Strauss, G. R.


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mathers, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Matters, L. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Messer, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Middleton, G.
Tillett, Ben


Groves, Thomas E.
Mllis, J. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major J.
Tout, W. J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Vaughan, David


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph
Viant, S. P.


Hamilton. Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walkden, A. G.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walker, J.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Muff, G.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Harris, Percy A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.
West, F. R.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Westwood, Joseph


Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
White, H. G.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm-, Ledywood)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hopkin, Daniel
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jenkins, Sir William
Perry, S. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wise, E. F.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

It being after Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.

Clauses 15 (Recoupment of tax to leaseholders by lessors), 16 (Tax paid by

mortgagee charged on mortgaged estate), and 17 (Ultimate incidence of tax assessed on persons not having whole beneficial interest) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Procedure as to assessment and collection.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 236.

Division No. 310.]
AYES.
[10.36 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Evans. Major H. (Gateshead)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Foot, Isaac
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Freeman, Peter
Leach, W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Alpass, J. H.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lees, J.


Ammon, Charles George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, W.


Angell, Sir Norman
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Arnott, John
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lindley, Fred W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Gill, T. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Logan, David Gilbert


Ayles, Walter
Glassey, A. E.
Longbottom, A. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gossling, A. G.
Longden, F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gould, F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Barr, James
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McElwee, A.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, V. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hail, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Han, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McShane, John James


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bromley, J.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brooke, W.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Manning, E. L.


Brothers. M.
Harris, Percy A.
Mansfield, W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
March S


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hayes, John Henry
Marcus, M.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Markham, S. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, Fred


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Cameron, A. G.
Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Messer, Fred


Church, Major A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Middleton, G.


Clarke, J. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mills, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, Major J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague. Frederick


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Isaacs, George
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Compton, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Morley, Ralph


Cove, William G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Daggar, George
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Dallas, George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Murnin, Hugh


Day, Harry
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Naylor, T. E.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Duncan, Charles
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Noel Baker, P. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Kinley, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Edge, Sir William
Knight, Holford
Oldfield, J. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lang, Gordon
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Egan, W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palin, John Henry


Elmley, Viscount
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Paling, Wilfrid


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrence, Susan
Palmer, E. T.


Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Perry, S. F.
Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, David


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shield, George William
Viant, S. P.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Shillaker. J. F.
Walkden, A. G.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Walker, J.


Pole, Major D. G.
Simmons, C. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Potts, John S.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Watkins, F. C.


Price, M. P.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Pybus, Percy John
Sinkinson, George
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Ramsay, T. B. Wilton
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
West, F. R.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Westwood, Joseph


Richards, R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
White, H. G.


Richardton, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Roberts, Rt. Hon F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Romerll, H. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanclly)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rowson, Guy
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wise, E. F.


Sanders, W. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sandham, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sawyer, G. F.
Thurtle, Ernest



Scott, James
Tillett, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sexton, Sir James
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tout, W. J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Albery, Irving James
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Colville, Major D. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Astor, Viscountess
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cooper, A. Duff
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hanbury, C.


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon Charles W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cowan, D. M.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Balniel, Lord
Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beaumont, M. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Home, Rt. Hon Sir Robert S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurd, Percy A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Boyce, Leslie
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bracken, B.
Dixey, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Briscoe, Richard George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley. Major G. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Buchan, John
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
England, Colonel A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Everard, W. Lindsay
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High peak)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Butler. R. A.
Ferguson, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, E. B.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Carver, Major W. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lymington, Viscount


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ganzoni, Sir John
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Grace, John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.




Melier, R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Thomson, Sir F.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lance, Stretford)
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ross, Ronald D,
Train, J.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Muirhead, A. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Savery, S. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


O'Connor, T. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, Sydney R.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Penny, Sir George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden. East)
Withers, Sir John James


Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spender-Clay, Cnionel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ramsbotham, H.
Stewart, W. J. (Beltast, South)



Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Remer, John R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Captain Hudson.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Thompson, Luke

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

FINANCE (EXPENSES OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land for the purposes of any tax on land value charged under any Act of the present Session relating to finance."—[King's Recommendation signified],—(Mr. P. Snowden).

The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June, put the Question thereupon forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 234.

Division No. 311.]
AYES.
[10.49 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Burgess, F. G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R Eiland)
Foot, Isaac


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Freeman, Peter


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cameron, A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Alpass, J. H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Chater, Daniel
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Angell, Sir Norman
Church, Major A. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Arnott, John
Clarke, J. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Ayles, Walter
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gill, T. H.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, Alfred John
Compton, Joseph
Glassey, A. E.


Barr, James
Cove, William G.
Gossling, A. G.


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gould, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Daggar, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dallas, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dalton, Hugh
Gray, Milner


Benson, G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bilndell, James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffith F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Day, Harry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowen, J. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Groves, Thomas E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Duncan, Charles
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bromfield, William
Ede, James Chuter
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bromley, J.
Edge, Sir William
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Brooke, W.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Brothers, M.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Egan, W. H.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Buchanan, G.
Elmley, Viscount
Harris, Percy A.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marcus, M.
Sexton, Sir James


Hayes, John Henry
Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marley, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, Fred
Sherwood, G. H.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George
Shield, George William


Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Messer, Fred
Simmons, C. J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Middleton, G.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Hopkin, Daniel
Mills, J. E.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mliner, Major J.
Sinkinson, George


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Sitch, Charles H.


Isaacs, George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jenkins, Sir William
Morley, Ralph
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sorsnsen, R.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Murnin, Hugh
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Kelly, W. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Strachey, E. J. St. Los


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strauss, G. R.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sullivan, J.


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Sutton, J. E.


Knight, Holford
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lang, Gordon
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palin, John Henry
Tillett, Ban


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Paling, Wilfrid
Tinker, John Joseph


Lawrence, Susan
Paimar, E. T.
Tout, W. J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Perry, S. F.
Vaughan, David


Leach, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Walkden, A. G.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark. Northern)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Walker, J.


Lees, J.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wallace, H. W.


Leonard, W.
Potts, John S.
Watkins, F. C.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lindley, Fred W.
Price, M. P.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pybus, Percy John
Wellock, Wilfred


Logan, David Gilbert
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Longbottom, A. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
West, F. R.


Longden, F.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Westwood, Joseph


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Raynes, W. R.
White, H. G.


Lunn, William
Richards. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


McElwee, A.
Ritson, S.
Willams, E. J. (Ogmore)


McEntee, V. L.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettieston)
Romerll, H. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McKinlay, A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Rowson, Guy
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacNeill-Weir. L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McShane, John James
Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wise, F F.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sanders, W. S.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Manning, E. L.
Sandham, E.



Mansfield, W.
Sawyer, G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


March, S.
Scott, James
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Albery, Irving James
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Butler, R. A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Butt, Sir Alfred


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Ernest Roy
Campbell, E. T-


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Carver, Major W. H.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Astor, Viscountess
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boyce, Leslie
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Atkinson, C.
Bracken, B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Buchan, John
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Balniel, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Chapman, Sir S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Christie, J. A.




Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, Sir Walter Ruoben


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, John R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Colville, Major D. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cooper, A. Duff
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Robinson. Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Inksip, Sir Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, A. M (Surrey, Farnham)


Croom-Johnson, B. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Savery, S. S.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davits, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smithers, Waldron


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Dixey, A. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Somerville. D G. (Willesden, East)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley. Hon. O. (Westmorland)


England, Colonel A.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Steel-Maitland Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. (Moray and Nairn)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Ferguson, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Titehfield, Major the Marquess of


Fortstier-Watker. Sir L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Train, J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streathan)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gowar, Sir Robert
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grace, John
Muirhead, A. J.
Wayland. Sir William A.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wells, Sydney R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Connor, T. J.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Neill, Sir H.
Withers, Sir John James


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Omsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Capt, Osbert
Womersley, W. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Penny, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hanbury, C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Sir George Bowyer.

Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

LAND VALUE TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND RELIEF).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy."]

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. P. Snowden): A request
has been made from the Opposition that I should, if possible, before we reach the discussion on Clause 19, give some indication of what my attitude would he to the purposes sought by the various Amendments on the Paper, and I am, therefore, going to make a short statement. I make it to-night so that it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning and hon. Members will have an opportunity of examining it before the Committee stage begins. It is, of course, quite natural that in the case of a new tax such as the present one, a great number of persons should seek exemption
from the tax, and it was always contemplated that some exemptions would have to be given as a matter of practical expediency, although in theory the tax should allow of no exemptions at all. A number of exemptions were put down under Clause 19, but it was realised that, after a full examination of all the cases put forward by the numerous bodies which have made representations, it might be necessary to extend the list of exemptions somewhat. That examination has now been carried out, and I propose to state as shortly as I can the further exemptions which I am prepared to incorporate in the Bill on the Report stage.
I have realised that any Amendments seeking to introduce long lists of different sorts of societies and associations by name or by categories would be quite impracticable and could only lead to a great deal of trouble and litigation. T, therefore, propose to put down on Report an Amendment which would, broadly speaking, exempt charities from the scope of the tax both in respect of the lands which they own and occupy for the purpose of their charity and lands which they bold for the purpose of providing themselves with funds for such purposes. This method of exemption will have the great advantage that various bodies will know their position under the Bill, as it will be similar to their present position with regard to Income Tax, and the Amendment which I propose to put down will in effect make this position perfectly clear. Charitable purposes under the Income Tax Acts have been defined as the result of a long series of leading decisions, and they cover the following purposes: (1) Relief of poverty: (2) advancement of education; (3) advancement of religion; and (4) other purposes beneficial to the community. I cannot, of course, pretend that such an Amendment will meet every case put forward in the Amendments to Clause 19 which appear on the Paper, but it will to a very large extent meet the purpose of these Amendments.
There is, however, one other matter to which I desire to make reference, and that is the question of playing fields. A large number of these will, of course, be exempted under the general charitable exemption. I may instance the playing fields of schools, though of course this
exemption would not apply in the case of private schools run for profit nor to playing fields rented on short lease. It would also apply to playing fields owned by a charitable institution, such, for instance, as the Young Men's Christian Association. There are in addition to these, however, a large class of playing fields and open spaces to which the public are admitted as of right, and I propose to put down a further Amendment to exempt these from the operation of the tax. But although, by these two Amendments, a large part of the playing field problem will be solved, they do not cover the whole of the claims under this head which have been put forward, which is virtually for the complete exemption of playing fields by whomever held, from whomever held, and whatsoever the conditions and circumstances. This is a demand which I do not see my way to accept, nor do I think that it should be accepted. The cases of the ground owned by sports clubs conducted on a purely commercial basis, private sports clubs with restricted membership, golf courses, are examples of the class of case in which it seems to me impossible to justify a concession. The weight of tax will in many of these cases be very small indeed, and I cannot subscribe to the view that the tax will produce disturbance or hardship by causing these playing fields to be built over.
There is, however, a means by which even these playing fields can substantially or largely exempt themselves from the incidence of this tax. An Amendment has been put in to-day by the Minister of Health to Clause 26 of the Town and Country Planning Bill which will permit any town planning local authority to accept an undertaking as regards the use of land within its area, and any undertaking so given and accepted will be under that Clause of such a nature that it must be taken into account in the valuation under this Bill by reason of the provisions of the First Schedule as an incumbrance. This will enable the owner of any playing field to offer an undertaking not to build on the land unit used for the playing field, and the effect of this will be materially to reduce the land value by discounting that portion thereof which represents value for building purposes by reference to the period for which the undertaking is given. Although this
will not, of course, in every case lead to complete exemption of the unit, it will put it in the power of the owner to reduce the amount of the tax very materially and should be a great inducement to owners to give such undertakings. This question of playing fields will be carefully explored during the interval between the passing of the present Bill and the coming into force of the tax, and I shall be glad to re-examine the question most fully in the light of any representations that are made to me, and any further proposals that are made as to relief from the tax when I have had more opportunity of ascertaining precisely the ultimate effect of the present proposals, which will, I believe, afford relief in all cases where it is justified.
There is one final matter, and that is the position of the friendly societies, which are at present exempt from Income Tax. As regards those, I am prepared to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to exempt them both in respect of lands occupied by them and lands used by them for investment purposes. The concessions that I propose to make will, so far as I can see, meet entirely 14 of the Amendments on Clause 19 which have been put down, while they will go some way, in fact a considerable way, towards meeting 14 others.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to express my acknowledgements to the right hon. Gentleman for consenting to come down here, I hope at not too much personal inconvenience, to make the statement to which we have listened to-night. That statement shows that he has not been blind or deaf during the last few weeks, and that he has carried out what I think he explained to us on Second Reading was the intention, to make his theory subordinate to practical expediency. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it might be a little difficult clearly and fully to apprehend all the implications of an oral statement, and I confess that, although I listened to him attentively, I found some difficulty in fitting what he told us to the Amendments on the Order Paper. He said that he thought he had fully met 14 Amendments. There are, however, 14 pages of Amendments on the Order Paper, and I am afraid that, when we see in print
what the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night, our discussions to-morrow will be really reduced to a wilderness, because nobody will know, until they see the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions in the form of Amendments, whether any particular Amendment upon the Order Paper is fully covered by his concession or not.
I was very much surprised to hear that he proposes to put the Amendments down, not on the Committee stage, but on the Report stage. How are we to discuss in Committee a whole series of Amendments all of which will be affected by his statement as to none of which are we told how far they are affected until we see the Amendments which are to be introduced upon Report. It seems to me that he is going to put the Committee into an impossible position. I would like to make a suggestion, which occurred to me while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking and which would perhaps get the Committee out of what otherwise will be an impossible position. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government desire that full and free discussion should be given to the important questions which are raised in Clause 19. The practical suggestion that I would make for getting over the difficulty is that the Government should withdraw Clause 19 and put down a new Clause to take its place, in which would be embodied the Amendments which would carry out the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We should then postpone discussion in Committee upon Clause 19 until we see it in its amended form and that would enable us to discuss it with full knowledge of what we are doing. It will have another advantage. It will commend itself, no doubt, to hon. Members opposite, because it will give them an opportunity of continuing the discussions which we understand have been taking place to-day upon Clause 20, and if that advantage be added to the additional clarity which will be given to the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope they will provide an overwhelming reason for the acceptance of the proposition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gave notice that I intended to raise a certain matter on the Adjournment of the House.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I really do not see that I am called upon to give an answer to the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) on the spur of the moment. The suggestion of the right hon. Member strikes me as being a physical impossibility, for it is impossible to redraft the Clause and have it ready for tomorrow.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Bring in a new Clause.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Clause 19, I think, must remain because there are a number of exemptions already given in that Clause. As the Amendments are proposed to-morrow the attitude of the Government will be indicated, and also the nature of the new Amendments which we propose to put down for Report. I do not see how I can possibly accept the suggestion to withdraw Clause 19.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Most certainly.

Lord HUGH CECIL: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be quite in order for him to postpone Clause 19 until the end of the Committee stage and by that time the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see how he could re-draft it.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If we were not working under the Guillotine that course would be possible, but I am advised that it cannot be done under the Guillotine procedure.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether the novel procedure which the right hon. Gentleman recommends to the House involves the resistance by the Government of Amendments which contain principles which are accepted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that as far as the principle of the Amendments on the Paper are concerned the Government are in complete agreement with them. Is this House to be reduced to the position of discussing at great length proposals which are acceptable to the Government, but which the Government to-morrow are going to reject? The procedure which he has outlined has another great inconvenience. It is an assault on one
of our most cherished procedures in this House. The House of Commons is entitled to a Committee stage. It has existed for hundreds of years. Private Members have to give notice of Amendments on Committee stage; why should not the Government, with all their resources, show the same courtesy to the House instead of depriving it of a whole stage to which it is traditionally entitled. I suggest that the Government are reducing democracy to degradation. They come here with a Guillotine procedure which denies to the representatives of the people the proper opportunities to discuss matters of great importance to their constituents, and not content with that they send a representative to the House of Commons to announce in the most dictatorial fashion that the House, will not be given an opportunity of discussing at the usual length and within the limited time at our disposal such Amendments as the right hon. Gentleman intends to move. I should have thought that the proper representation of the people's interest was as much a matter of concern to hon. Gentlemen opposite as it is to others.
It is only a few days ago that the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) suggested to the Select Committee on Procedure that we might curtail discussion here altogether and proceed by edict, that it would simply be incumbent on the Government to announce what their proposals were, and that this House would have reserved to it only the duty of saying "Yea" or "Nay." We have not had to wait long for the recommendations of the hon. Baronet to be put into effect. It is not necessary for candidates representing the new party to be elected; they have their nominees on the Treasury Bench. It is observable that the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick no longer graces the House with his presence. He can safely leave his Mussolini methods to-the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I should have thought that it would have appealed to the Government that, having imposed the Guillotine on this House, they might leave it at any rate the ordinary stages of procedure; but they have treated the House with complete defiance. I have no doubt that when the electorate is asked to record
a verdict on their achievements, the electorate will treat them with the same contempt as they treat their constituents. I therefore invite the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision, or at any rate to tell us what is going to be the attitude of the Government to-morrow towards the Amendments that are on the Paper. Those Amendments have been down for many days, and they embody the wishes and desires of very important bodies in this country. Why should not the Government adopt the normal course of letting the House of Commons either have their wishes conceded by a majority or rejected by a majority instead of curtailing the procedure which has been observed for many centuries? The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret the precedents which he has established. They do no credit to the Government and they bring the House of Commons into even greater contempt than that to which it has been reduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir R. HORNE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask for a Ruling upon a question which has been raised by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told the House, somewhat to my surprise, that it was impossible on a Committee stage when the Guillotine was in operation to postpone consideration of a particular Clause until later. I should have thought that it meant only that we should reach Clause 20, and that another opportunity would be found at a later stage for dealing with Clause 19. May I ask your Ruling upon that question?

Sir BASIL PETO: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had been informed that, under the Guillotine procedure, it was quite impossible for him to adopt the course which was adopted last year, of postponing a Clause entirely, taking it out of the Bill, and proposing a new Clause to be considered with the new Clauses. If that procedure were adopted, in the present case, being a Government new Clause, would it not take precedence of all Clauses on the Paper and therefore have its opportunity for discussion before any other Clause is discussed on the ninth day under the Guillotine Resolution?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I put another point which is of importance? There are many Amendments, backed by Members in all parts of the House, which do not appear at first hearing to be covered by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, I think it important that we should have, at any rate, some shall share of the Committee stage in order to draw out what view the Government take on these points.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is difficult for me to give a Ruling on something which I have not actually seen proposed. On the other hand, it seems to me that it would be quite possible for the Government, if they liked, to postpone consideration of this Clause, because on the last day under the Guillotine Motion—the last day of the Committee stage—the Government new Clauses would come up first.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If we were to postpone Clause 19, it then would not be taken, I understand, at the end of the Bill as it stands, but would come up as a new Clause?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would come as a new Clause on the ninth day.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said in reply to the Noble Lord that I would take the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman into consideration.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. If the right hon. Gentleman postponed the Clause, then it would come up as a postponed Clause. If it was withdrawn, then it would come up as a new Clause.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to understand, then, that we could not postpone the Clause? I am not prepared to give an opinion just now.

Mr. E. BROWN: The advantage in withdrawal is this. If we postpone the Clause we may not be able to make radical changes such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates, whereas, if it is withdrawn, it comes up as a new Clause, and the House itself, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will have an opportunity of dealing with it.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: If I may suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, it is perfectly possible for the Government to
postpone the Clause, and if they do not like that, it is possible to take the course of withdrawing the Clause. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be able to give a definite answer on this very complicated matter. I have had some experience in Finance Bills, having helped in the conduct of five of them in this House, and I think the right hon. Gentleman runs a great risk of getting into serious difficulties with this Clause to-morrow after the statements made to-night. I am sure it would be for the convenience of the House if the Clause could be put down as a new Clause, and I am equally sure that it would be to the advantage of those who have to conduct business in the House of Commons.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we not to have a reply? If the right hon.
Gentleman looks at the Order of the House he will see that after Half-past Seven o'clock on the Ninth Day time is allotted to the new Clauses, Schedules, new Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion. Does not that cover him whether it is a postponed or a withdrawn Clause?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that it would not be reasonable to expect me to give a definite reply now on a matter involving a good many complications and I cannot go beyond what I have said.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.